AGENCY COORDINATION

Appendix

F

F. Agency Coordination
Early Coordination

EARLY COORDINATION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

P.O. BOX 80 

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF: 

Executive Office 

Mr. David Valenstein 

Division Chief 

VICKSBURG, MISSISSIPPI 39181-0080 

Environmental and Systems Planning 

Of f ice of Passenge r and Fre i g h t Programs 

U. S . Depart ment of Transportati o n 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

I am writing in response to your August 9, 2011, letter 

requesting that the Corps of Engineers be a cooperating agency 

in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for the 

Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 EIS. 

Within the Mississippi Valley Division, your project 

will cross the geographic boundaries of our St. Louis and Rock 

Island Districts. I understand that Regulatory staffs at both 

the St. Louis and Rock Island Districts were involved in this 

project during the development of your 2004 EIS. On 

September 7, 2011, at the Federal Highway Administration's 

NEPA/404 merger meeting in Springfield, Illinois, Corps 

Regulator personnel heard presentations on the subject Tier 1 

EIS process. 

I concur in your request that the St. Louis and Rock Island 

Districts serve as cooperating agencies in this EIS process. 

Although the Corps must exercise its independent judgment while 

carrying out its regulatory responsibilities, the Corps will 

give deference to the maximum extent allowed by law to the 

project purpose, project need, and project alternatives that the 

Federal Railroad Administration determines appropriate for the 

project. I am confident that continued early coordination 

between our agencies will ensure that the purpose, need, and 

suite of alternatives presented in the NEPA document are usable 
-2-

by the Corps in carrying out the its legal responsibilities 

under binding statutes and regulations (e.g., conducting the 

Corp's public interest review, determining the "least 

environmentally damaging practicable alternative" under the 

Clean Water Act section 404(b) (1) guidelines, and fulfilling 

other applicable legal requirements). 

My points of contact are Mr. Keith McMullen of the 

St. Louis District Regulatory Branch, (314)331-8582, 

Keith.A.Mcmullen@usace.army.mil, and Mr. Ward Lenz, of the Rock 

Island District, (309) 794-5370, Gary.W.Lenz@usace.army.mil. 

I look forward to working with you and your staff on this 

project. 

ajor General, u.S. Army 

Division Commander 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Rock Island Field Office 

1511 471h Avenue 

Moline, Illinois 61265 

Phone: (309) 757-5800 Fax: (309) 757-5807 

IN REPLY REFER 

TO: 

FWS/RIFO 

Mr. George E. Weber, Acting Deputy Director 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Division of Public & Intermodal Transportation 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

March 18,2011 

IT5)~lG~~~~ II] lnl MAR 2 2 2011 

Illinois Dept. of Transportation 

Division of Public and 

Intermodal Transportation 

This is in response to your letter of February 18, 2011, requesting our comments on the proposed 

Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Illinois High Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis. 

This study will examine a range of reasonable corridor-level alternative routes between Chicago 

and Joliet. The EIS will assess changing the existing rail corridor from one track to two tracks; 

increasing the number of high-speed passenger trains; potential corridor route alternatives 

between Chicago and Joliet, through the City of Springfield, and the approach to St. Louis. For 

the purposes of this letter we will provide information relative to the project described above. 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies not jeopardize federally threatened or endangered species or 

adversely modify designated critical habitat. To fulfill this mandate, Federal agencies (or their 

designated non-federal representative) must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) if they determine their project "may affect" listed species or critical habitat. If Federal 

agencies or their non-federal representatives determine their actions will have "no effect" on 

listed species, their habitats, or designated critical habitat, consultation is not required. However, 

we recommend you maintain a written record of why "no effect" findings are warranted for your 

Federal actions. 

In order to determine if your project "may affect" threatened or endangered species in theproject 

area, we invite you to use a new tool the Service has designed to help with the consultation 

process - the Section 7(a)(2) Technical Assistance webpage 

(111 II': \\·\\\\.I\\,.~O\h1lid\\l"stcl1dall~crl"dsccl i01l 7 , 7pruces, illdc~. hi 111). By following the 
instructions, you can detennine what your action area is, whether listed species may be found 

within the action area, and if the project may affect listed species. You will find several products 

on the site that can streamline the consultation process for this and future projects. When 

detennining if listed species may be located within a project area, you can download county 

specific species lists for all of the states in Region 3. Species specific best management practices 

will also eventually be available. Example letters and templates are available to assist with 

documenting "no effect" detenninations and preparing requests for "not likely to adversely 

affect" concurrence. 

Bald eagle - As of August 9, 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is no longer 

included on the list of threatened and endangered species. It remains protected under the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and may not be harassed, 

hanned, or disturbed when present nor may nest trees be cleared. For more infonnation go to 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/guidelineslindex.html. 

Wetlands 

National Wetland Inventory maps indicate that there may be wetlands within and adjacent to the 

project area. These areas may be affected by the proposed project. The Corps of Engineers is 

the Federal agency responsible for wetland regulation, and we recommend that you contact them 

for assistance in delineating the wetland types and acreage within the project boundary. Priority 

consideration should be given to avoid impacts to these wetland areas. Any future activities in 

the study area that would alter these wetlands may require a Section 404 pennit. Unavoidable 

impacts will require a mitigation plan to compensate for any losses of wetland functions and 

values. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clock Tower Building, P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, 

Illinois, 61201, should be contacted for infonnation about the pennit process. 

These comments are provided as technical assistance in accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq). These comments do not 

constitute the report of the Secretary of the Interior on the project within the meaning of Section 

2(b) ofthe Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, do not fulfill the requirements under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act, nor do they represent the review comments of the U.S. Department 

of the Interior on any forthcoming environmental statement. If you have questions, please 

contact Heidi Woeber of my staff at 309-757-5800, extension 209. 

cc: ILDNR (Hamer) 

Sincerely, 

Jfl.ichard 

~u~ C. Nelson 

~. Field Supervisor 

s:\office users\heidi\highspeedrail\techasspassengerrailchicagotostlouis.doc 
United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

FIVSI AES-CIFO/2009-F A-0558 

David Valenstein 

Division Chief 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Chicago Ecological Services Field Office 

1250 South Grove Avenue, Suite 103 

Barrington, Illinois 60010 

Phone: (847)381-2253 Fax: (847) 381-2285 

Environment and Systems Planning 

Office of Passenger and Freight Programs 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

September 8, 2011 

This responds to your request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to be a 

cooperating agency with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Illinois 

Department of TranspOliation (IDOT) in the development of a Tier I Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Chicago to st. Louis High Speed Rail (HSR) project. The Tier 1 EIS 

will assess changing the existing rail corridor from one track to two tracks; increasing the 

number of high-speed passenger trains; potential corridor route alternatives between Chicago 

and Joliet, through the City of Springfield, and the approach to st. Louis; and the associated 

transportation and environmental impacts. It is anticipated that the EIS will also examine the 

viability of Chicago to Joliet corridors utilizing the Canadian National, Metra Rock Island 

District, and other reasonable corridors that could support high speed rail passenger service. 

The Service accepts your request to serve as a cooperating agency for this project, to the degree 

that time and resources permit. We will provide technical assistance in the manner that you 

requested, specifically: 

1. We will provide meaningful and early input on defining the purpose and need, determining 

the range of alternatives to be carried forward, and the methodologies and level of detail 

required in the alternatives analysis; 

2. We will participate in coordination meetings and joint field reviews, as appropriate; and 

3. We will provide timely review and comment on pre-draft or pre-final environmental 

documents, including alternatives considered, anticipated impacts, and mitigation. 
The Service's acceptance of cooperating agency status does not necessarily imply endorsement 

or SUppOlt ofthe project or of a particular altemative. The intent of our acceptance of 

cooperating agency status is to ensure that significant environmental issues are identified as 

early as possible in the planning process and that throughout the multiple stages of the planning 

process, decision makers have the environmental information necessary to make informed and 

timely decisions. The Service has various statutory authorities and responsibilities. 

Cooperating agency status neither enlarges nor diminishes the decision-making authority of 

any agency involved in the NEPA process (CEQ memorandum of January 30, 2002). 

We look forward to working closely with the FRA, mOT, and other cooperating agencies as 

the planning of this project goes forward. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Shawn 

Chton at 847/381-2253, ext. 19. 

cc: USEPA, West 

USACOE, Chemich 

mOT, Weber 

Sincerely, 

Louise Clemency 

Field Supervisor 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 ~I~"(_' '-'"\''''' --] 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVA ,:' r ': 'Ii' i! I',!: I i I. I ~J CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 lS l~ ,~U \'/ L', l 

AUG 1 U 2011 AUG 3 0 ~',~~1 -

David Valenstein 

Division Chief 

Environment and Systems Planning 

Office of Passenger and Freight Programs 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Illinois Dept. 01 I rd,::rportetiOrJ 

DilJision of PuLhc llnd 

RE~lMrrOI~ TifENlSIlB'illlfl; 0 rJ 

mailcode E-19J 

RE: Federal Railroad Administration Request for the U.S. EPA to be a Cooperating 

Agency on their Joint Tier I & II Environmental Impact Statement with the Illinois 

Department of Transportation (IDOT) for a Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (EPA) has received your 

invitation letter of August 9,2011, regarding a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 

the above High Speed Rail (HSR) Project. It is proposed that a route from downtown Chicago to 

Joliet, Illinois and an approach into St. Louis will be considered; alternatives for double tracking 

the Chicago to St. Louis rail corridor will be identified; and adding necessary infrastructure, 

signaling, station, equipment, and rolling stock improvements for increasing railroad corridor 

speeds to 125 mph will be determined_ A combined Tier I and Tier II analysis will be included 

in this NEP A documentation to select a route through the Springfield, Illinois corridor segment, 

such that segment construction could begin once the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. 

Because EPA has expertise concerning the nation's natural resources and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, we do have an interest in this project. 

Pursuant to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) and in keeping with our responsibilities under the NEPA and Section 309 

of the Clean Water Act, we accept the invitation to be a cooperating agency for this project, to 

the degree time and resources permit, in the manner you requested, specifically: 

1. We will provide meaningful early input to defining the purpose and need, the range of 

alternatives to be considered in detail, methodologies and level of detail for alternatives analysis; 

2. Participate in coordination meetings and appropriate field reviews; and 

3. Provide timely review and comment on pre-draft and subsequent environmental documents, 

including mitigation proposals. 

Recycled/Recyclable· Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% PoslconSumer) 
We look forward to continuing discussion of the issues involved in this project along with the 

preparations for and review of the draft EIS. Feel free to contact me at 312-886-2910 / 

westlake.kenneth@epa.gov or Norm West, my staff member, at 312-353-5692 / 

west.norman@epa.gov, with further information or inquiries regarding this project. 

Kenneth A. Westl 

Chief, NEP A Implementation Section 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Cc: George Weber, mOT Bureau of Railroads 

Kathy Chernich, US ACE 

Shawn Cirton, US FWS 
United States Department of Agriculture 

~NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2118 West Park Court 

Champaign, IL 61821 

Phone: 217/353-6600 

Fax: 217/353-6676 

February 24, 2011 

Mr. George Weber, Acting Deputy Director 

Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Division of Public & Intermodal Transportation 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

' 0 ~~reIF "7 

" -< L~:] (!J II;; UL i J l1" i '1 I '.1 ! . 

I I L" , ~~ MAR 1 2011 

II/inoi~ D:CpL of T ransporlation 

Dlllislon of Public and 

Intermodal T rallsportation 

RE: Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement, Illinois High Speed Rail Chicago to st. Louis 

Agency Scoping Meetings 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

We have reviewed the proposed project as requested. 

The proposed infrastructure, signal, communication and station improvements would be 

confined to the existing rail corridor. These will have no impact on prime or important farmlands. 

If alternative corridors outside of existing track routes are proposed they will need additional 

investigation to determine their impacts on prime or important farmland. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

cc: 

Ronald Ziehm, ASTC, USDA-NRCS, 502 Comfort Drive, Suite 0, Marion, IL 62959 

Steve Mozley, ASTC, USDA-NRCS, P.O. Box 19281, State Fairgrounds, Springfield, IL 62794 

Don McCallon, ASTC, USDA-NRCS, 3605 N. IL Route 47, Suite C, Morris, IL 60450 

Angela Biggs, ASTC, USDA-NRCS, 6021 Development Drive, Suite 3, Charleston, IL 61920 

Lindsay Reinhardt, Acting SSS, NRCS, 2118 West Park Court, Champaign, IL 61821 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people 

conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment. 
~NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2118 W. Park Court 

Champaign, IL 61821-2986 

(217) 353-6600 

August 31,2011 

United States Department of Agriculture 

David Valet1!)t6ln, Division Chief 

Environmental and Systems Planning 

Office of Passenger and Freight Programs 

U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

www.il.nrcs.usda.gov 

After reviewing the invitation to participate in the Tier II analysis of the Chicago to St. louis 

High-Speed Rail Project, it was geterminedthat t~e Natural Resources <;:;onservation Service 

does 'not have adequate st~ff to support the effort as a Cooperating Agency. We may be called 

on for technical assistance or consultation, but this is probably best handled on an ad hoc basis. 

I , ' . ' . 

We have previously completed the land Evaluation and Site Assessment (lESA) and Farmland 

Protection Program evaluations. Please send us a copy of the draft and final environmental 

documents for this project for comment and contact us if we can assist you in any other manner. 

cc: . 

Ms. Wendy Messenger, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad Policy & 

Development, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., MS-20, Washington, DC 20590 

George Weber, lOOT, Bureau Chief, Bur~au of Railroads, Division of Public & Intermoda! 

Transportation, 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, Il62764 . 

Michael Garcia, !DOT, Bureau of High Speed & Passenger Rail, Division of Public & Intermodal 

Transportation, 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, Il62764 . 

Gary R. Struben, State Soil Sdentist, USDA-NRCS, 2118 W. Park Court, Champaign, Il61821 

Helping People Help the Land 

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 

- "';'. ; • ~I L 

. . -: \ ....... .. 
u.s Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Highway 

Administration 

Mr. David Valenstein 

Environment Systems and Planning 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Illinois Division 

September 2, 2011 

3250 Executive Park Dr. 

Springfield, IL 62703 

(217) 492-4640 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/ildiv 

In Reply Refer To: 

HPER-IL 

Subject: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has received your letter of August 9, 2011, requesting 

FHWA become a cooperating agency for the subject project. The FHW A hereby accepts the request 

to become a cooperating agency because FHW A possesses special expertise with respect to the 

environmental issues that will be analyzed as part of the project. Specifically, FHWA will be 

interested in reviewing the potential impacts the project may have on safety and operations of 

roadways that may be impacted by the project as well as any impacts that the project may have on the 

Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program. 

FHW A agrees to participate in the development of the project to the degree, time and resources 

permit in the manner you requested, including: 

• Provide meaningful and early input on defining the purpose and need, determining the range 

of alternatives to be carried forward, and the methodologies and level of detail required in the 

alternatives analysis; 

• Participate in coordination meetings and joint field reviews, as appropriate, and 

• Timely review and comment on the pre-draft and pre-final environmental documents to 

reflect the views and concerns ofFHWA 

We look forward to working with the Federal Railroad Administration on the project. Please contact 

Matt Fuller at (217) 492-4625 or by email at Matt.FulJer@dot.gov should you have any further 

information or inquiries regarding this project. 

fkIfJ%/k/( 

Jon-Paul Kohler 

Planning and Program Development Manager 

ecc: Mr. George Weber, Bureau of Railroads, mOT 

Mr. Michael Garcia, Bureau of High Speed and Passenger Rail, IDOT 
U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

March 3, 2011 

Mr. George E. Weber, Acting Deputy Director 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Division of Public & Intermodal Transportation 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Central Region 

Iowa, Kansas 

Missouri, Nebraska 

901 Locust 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2325 

Re: Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement, Illinois High Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis 

Agency Scoping Meetings 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reviews other federal agency environmental documents from 

the perspective of the FAA's area of responsibility; that is, whether the proposal will have negative 

effects on aviation. We generally do not provide comments from an environmental standpoint. 

Therefore, we have reviewed the material furnished with your letter dated February 18,2011 and have no 

comments regarding environmental matters. 

Airspace Considerations 

The project may require formal notice and review for airspace review under Federal Aviation Regulation 

(FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. To determine if you need to file with FAA, go to 

http://oeaaaJaa.gov and click on the "Notice Criteria Tool" found at the left-hand side of the page. 

If you determine that filing with FAA is required, I recommend a 120-day notification to accommodate 

the review process and issue our determination letter. Proposals may be filed at http://oeaaa.faa.gov 

(requires free registration). 

More information on this process may be found at: 

http://www .faa.gov / airports/ central/engineering/part77 / 

If you have questions, please contact me at scotttener@faa.gov or 816-329-2639. 

Sincerely, 

/,1 ,--/ ,tf/ /!~ 

~~~/ .. \ 

Scott Tener, P.E. 

Environmental Specialist 
Homeland U.S. Department Security o~. '. 

United States - Coast Guard 

Commander (dpb) 

Ninth Coast Guard District 

1240 E. Ninth Street. Room 2047 

Cleveland.OH 44199·2060 

Mr. George Weber, Acting Deputy Director 

Department of Intermodal and Public Transit 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolph Street - Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

Phone: (216) 902·6087 

FAX: (216) 902-6088 

16590 

B-049fsms 

March IS, 2011 

This letter is in response to the Notice of Intent to prepare an Enviromnental Impact Statement (ElS) for 

the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program published in the February 14, 20 II edition of 

the Federal Register (76 FR 8397). 

This office submitted comments in response to the original Enviromnental Assessment in 2009. We 

described what we believed to be existing bridges crossing waterways under study at that time, and a 

general statement that Coast Guard Bridge Permit actions may be necessary, pending further specific 

information to positively identify the waterways and bridges under the jurisdiction of Ninth Coast Guard 

District. 

Based on the information provided so far for the Tier I Enviromnental Impact Statement (ElS), it appears 

the crossing of existing Norfolk Southern Railway and Canadian National Railway bridges will not be 

under further consideration. Without further detailed information this office cannot positively identify 

which waterways or existing bridges are under consideration for the project corridor(s), or the extent of 

our jurisdiction or involvement with the study. It appears that the existing Amtrak Bridge at Mile 3.77 

over South Branch of Chicago River is included in the Union Pacific Railroad corridor in the study, but 

additional information would be needed to make that determination. There could be a Coast Guard 

Bridge Permit requirement depending on the extent of changes to existing structures. This office is 

prepared to clarify its jurisdiction, permitting requirements, or involvement in the ongoing ElS upon 

receipt of additional specific information. 

Please feel free to contact me at (216) 902-6085 to discuss this project or to answer any questions or 

concerns. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

:;}Jff!:.~~~. ---

By direction of Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District 

fB)~(G~~\w~ f[JI tn1 MAR 1 82011 lW 

Illinois. De.pt. of Transportation 

DIvIsion of Public and 

Inte.rmodal Transportation 
~OiS Historic 

Preservation Agency 

FAX (217) 782-8161 

1 Old State r.Anit(,i Plaza • SprinnfiAllrl, Illinois 62701·1512 • www.illinois-history.gov 

Various Counties 

Chicago to St. Louis 

High Speed Rail Project 

Exact Route Not Yet Selected 

IHPA Log #011091109 

March 21, 2011 

George Weber, Bureau Chief 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation 

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 6-600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

Thank you for including the State Historic Preservation Office in the scoping 

meeting for the above referenced project. It was very beneficial to get an update 

on the project status. We also had the opportunity to talk to the cultural 

resources consultant to get a specific update on structures and archaeological 

survey progress. We look forward to meeting with you again to discuss the draft 

surveys and continue section 106 consultation. 

Sincerely, 

~CZ.-~~ . Anne E. Haaker 

Deputy State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

Illinois Ilept. of Transportation 

Ilivision of Puhlic and 

Inter modal Transportation 

A teletypewriter for the speech/hearing impaired is available at 217-524-7128. It is not a voice or fax line. 
1 Old State Capitol Plaza • Springfield , Illinois 62701-1512 

Various Counties 

Chicago to St. Louis 

High Speed Rail Project 

Exact Route Not Yet Selected 

IHPA Log #011091109 

September 9, 2011 

David Valenstein 

u.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

FAX (217) 782-8161 

www.il li nois-h istory. gOY 

We have received your letter of August 9, 2011 regarding the ongoing Environmental 

Impact Statement process for the proposed High Speed Rail project . The Illinois 

State Historic Preservation Office accepts your invitation to participate pursuant 

to 36 CFR part 800 in accordance with section 106 of the National Historic 

~reservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

Sincerely, 

~CC~CAJLkv Anne E. Haaker 

Deputy State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

,-" 'O' : " . 

A teletypewriter for the speech/hearing impaired is available at 2 17-524-7128. It is not a voice or fax line. 
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 • (217) 782-2829 

James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-300, Chicago, IL 60601 • (312) 814-6026 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR 

217-782-0547 

February 24, 2011 

Mr. George Weber 

Acting Deputy Director 

Illinois Dept of Transportation 

Division of Public & Intennodal Transportation 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

DOUGLAS P. SCOTT, DIRECTOR 

IHinois Dept. 01 T ra~s[lort3lilJt1 Division of Public an~ Intermodal T fSI1SportatlOU 

The Agency has reviewed the proposed Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Illinois High Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis. 

The Agency has no objections to the proposed project; a pennit will be required from the 

Division of Water Pollution Control. A construction site activity stonnwater NPDES pennit 

will be required for one or more than one acre being disturbed during construction. 

For questions or comments, you may contact Al Keller, 217-782-0610. 

Solid and hazardous waste must be properly disposed of or recycled. 

Acting Deputy Director 

Rockford. 4301 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103 • (815) 987·7760 

Elgin. 595 S. State, Elgin, IL 60123. (847) 608·3131 

Bureau of Land - Peoria. 7620 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61614 • (309) 693·5462 

Collinsville. ·2009 Mall Street, Collinsville, IL 62234 • (618) 346·5120 

Des Plaines. 9511 W. Harrison St., Des Plaines, IL 60016' (847) 294-4000 

Peoria. 5415 N. University St., Peoria, IL 61614 • (309) 693·5463 

Champaign. 2125 S. First St., Champaign, IL 61820' (217) 278·5800 

Marion. 2309 W. Main St., Suite 116, Marion, IL 62959' (618) 993·7200 

Primed on Recycled Paper 
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 N ORTH GRAND AVE NUE EAST, PO. Bn\ 19S()6, SI'RI.NCfIEI.D, ILliNOIS 62794-9506 - ( 217) 782-211 3 

PAT QUINN, C( )\'( RNO" 

2171785-4140 

TDD 2171782-9143 

September 16. 20 II 

David Valcnstein 

Division Chief 

F!1\irolll1lcnt and Systems Planning 

Office of Passenger and Freight Programs 

I ;SDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE 

Wash ington. DC 20590 

Subject: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency appreciates your invitation to participate in the 

above-referenced project as a "cooperating Agency." The Illinois EPA is looking forward to 

reviewing and commenting on the draft Environmental Impact Statement documents, however; 

we are not able to commit to serving as a cooperating agency. 

Please contact Mike Rogers at 217/524-4408 with any questions. 

Sincere~1Kr---

Laurel L. Kroack, Chief 

Bureau of Air 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED P APER 
'V Illinois Department of . ....--... Natural Resources Pat Quinn, Goveroor 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield, mincis 62702-1271 

hnp://dnr.state.il.us 

Man: Miller, Acting Director 

August 15,2011 

Mr. David Valenstein, Division Chief 

Environment and Systems Planning 

U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

RE: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

IDNR Cooperating Agency 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate as a Cooperating Agency in the development of the 

Tier One Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. It is important that 

the lllinois Department of Natural Resources be involved in the review process to assure 

resources protection and compliance with the state Endangered Species Protection Act and the 

Illinois Wetlands Protection Act of 1989. : ~., J.t ,-; .:, . 

Please address all correspondence and meeting agenda to Mr. Steve Hamer of the Office of 

Realty and Environmental Planning, Division of Ecosystems and Environment at One Natural 

Resources Way, Springfield, IL. 62702-1271. 

rfyo~ have aID.' qW:~s~~:R~ th~ abqy<~, please contact me at 217-785-4862. 

Sincerely, 

~~

_ A -:-tJ-:-6~7Y( -- _I / ~ -

Steve Hamer 

Transportation Review Program 

Piyision of Elwiro~en.t and Ecosystem~ .. :: .. - -.~), ' 

~ I. '.., ~ ,"" ... ' . . ' ,":--

::) :' :}' - : c · ~. > ' • .;~ .... ,., .r, ' , . .. " L 

. . ~ {r ~: ,1 ' - • '.: ". 
~ /"- "'" ~< STATE OF> MI&S0 URl' Jeremiah W Uay) Nixon, Governor. Sara Parker Pauley, Direcror 

DEPA RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

~I 

March 2, 2011 

George Weber 

Acting Deputy Director 

Division of Public & Intermodal Transportation 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

www.dnr.mo.gov 

Re: Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement, Illinois High Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis (FRA) St. 

Louis City, Missouri 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

Thank you for submitting information on the above referenced project for our review pursuant to Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 89-665, as amended) and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation's regulation 36 CFR Part 800, which requires identification and evaluation of cultural 

resources. 

We have reviewed the information provided concerning the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement, 

Illinois High Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis. We look forward to receiving further information relevant to 

the project, and to the opportunity to participate in this process. 

If you have any questions, please write Judith Deel at State Historic Preservation Office, P.O. Box 176, 

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102 or call 573/75'1-7862. Please be sure to include the SHPO Log Number 

(099-SLC-11) on all future correspondence or inquiries relating to this project. 

Sincerely, 

STATE 

~~ 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 

Mark A. Miles 

Director and Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

MAM:jd 

C Alexandra Newcomer, FRA 

Jan Cameron, STUCRO 

o ncc) ci ed raper 
Illinois 

Agn~!l. -l::UJ.ture 

Bureau orLand and Water Resources 

Pat Quinn, Governor 

Thomas E. Jennings, Director 

State Fairgrounds· P.O. Box 19281 . Springfield, IL 62794-9281 . 2171782-6297 . TDD 217/524-6858 . Fax 217/557-0993 

September 12, 2011 

Mr. David Valenstein, Division Chief 

Environment and Systems Planning 

Office of Passenger and Freight Programs 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SWE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Invitation for Participating Agency 

Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project 

"fier Oi ,J Envi, or .mental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

Thank you for your August 9, 2011 correspondence notifying the Illinois Department of 

Agriculture (IDOA) that ihe Federal Railroad Administration, in cooperation with the Illinois 

Depariment of Transportation (IDOT), has initiated a Tier One Environmental Impact Statement 

for ~he Chicago to St. Louis High .. Speed Rail Project. 

A Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier One Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 

being prepared to ascertain project objectives to meet current and future regional travel needs 

through significant improvements to the level and quality of passenger rail service along the 

Chicago to St. Louis Corridor. Specifically, the EIS will consider increasing the frequency of 

high-speed passenger trains between Chicago and St. Louis and increasing train speeds up to 

125 mph from the 110 mph maximum speed currently planned for the corridor. 

The Tier One EIS will assess changing the existing rail corridor from one track to two tracks; 

increasing the number of high speed passenger trains; potential corridor route alternatives 

between Chicago and Joliet, through the City of Springfield, and the approach to St. Louis; and 

the associated transportation and environmental impacts. The Tier One EIS will conclude with a 

Record of Decision selection of an alternative to carry forward into further analysis at a Tier 2 

level. 

The IDOA accepts your invitation to become a participating agency in the development of the 

Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement. • ~ <~ ~ 
Tier 1 Draft EIS

TIER 1 DRAFT EIS
REPLY TO 

ATIENTION OF: 

Technical Services Division 

Regulatory Branch 

LRC-2012-00096 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

CHICAGO DISTRICT, CORPS OF EfijGINEERS 

111 NORTH CANAL STREET 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-7206 

August 15, 2012 

SUBJECT: Comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS for the High-Speed Rail Service Improvements in 

the Chicago to St. Louis Corridor in Cook, Will, Grundy, Livingston, McLean, Logan, 

Sangamon, Macoupin, Jersey, Madison, and St. Clair Counties in Illinois and St. Louis County in 

Missouri 

Joseph Shacter 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolp Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3229 

Dear Mr. Shacter: 

This letter is in response to your request that the Department of the Army (Corps) provide 

comments on the tier 1 draft EIS for the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail service 

improvements. Comments contained herein relate to alternatives located within the Chicago 

District Regulatory boundaries of Cook and Will County. Following a review of the draft 

document, the Corps provides the foHowing comments: 

In the event that a Corps permit is requested in the future, the Corps must be provided 

with all coordination documentation for any alternative selected that would affect the Hine's 

emerald dragonfly, designated critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly, or other species 

yet to be identified within the project area. 

Table 3.3-3 indicates the wetland acreage for each alternative. The alternatives that 

contain the lowest acreage of wetlands are: 2, Sa, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, and 6c with acreages ranging 

from 9.06 to 10.20 acres. For the two alternatives that were carried forward for further 

consideration, Table 3.3-3 indentified 10.2 acres of wetlands for Alternative 2 (Section 1) and 

21.57 acres of Alternative 4d (Section 2). 

Table 5.11-1 identified 1.1 acres of wetland impact for Section 1 and 5.6 acres of wetland 

impact for Section 2. The amount of wetland acreage present within each alternative corridor 

does not necessarily correspond with the amount of anticipated wetland impact, so it is difficult 

to use the acreage totals in Table 3.3-3 as a factor in dismissing any of the alternatives (with the 

possible exception of Alternative 1 with 73 .12 acres). 

In addition, Alternatives A and B (Section 1) involve a potential direct impact to 

designated critical habitat for Hine's emerald dragonfly, whereas Alternatives C and D (Section 
- 2 -

2) do not result in this impact. Potential wetland impacts for Alternatives A and B in Section 1 

are less than those in for Alternatives C and D in Section 2. As such, Alternatives A and B 

would be more favorable from a wetland impacts perspective, but Alternatives C and D would be 

more favorable from a Section 7 perspective. This could create a potential point of conflict. 

The Joliet to Alton section has 2 alternatives around the Springfield area, but the 

remainder of this section contains only 1 alternative. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is 

located along the route. As stated in the document, Midewin is the first national tallgrass prairie 

in the country. Midewin is well known as being a high quality resource for the region. 

Summarizing the above, the Corps has the following recommendations: 

a. Due to the difference in wetland acreages listed in Table 3.3-3 and the potential impact 

acreages listed in Table 5.11-1 as well as the potential conflict point between wetland 

impacts and Section 7 impacts in choosing a preferred alternative, additional alternatives 

should be retained. 

b. Due to the high quality nature of Midewin, the feasibility of alternatives that avoid 

impacts to this resource should be investigated. 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Soren Hall of my staff by telephone at 312-

846-5532, or email atSoren.G.Hall@usace.army.mil. 

Copy Furnished: 

Leesa A. Beal 

Chief, Regulatory Branch 

Chicago District 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Norm West) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Shawn Cirton) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (JeffSniadach) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Amy Henke) 
~NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

2118 West Park Court 

Champaign, IL 61821 

Phone: 2171353-6600 

Fax: 2171353-6676 

July 27,2012 

United Slates Deparbnent of Agriculture 

Mr. James W. Moll, Vice President 

Hanson Professional Services, Inc. 

1525 S. Sixth Street 

Springfield IL 62703 

RE: Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis Missouri 

High Speed Rail Corridor Program 

Dear Mr. Moll: 

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis Missouri 

High Speed Rail Corridor Program as requested. 

The proposed project as outlined in the EIS will have minimal impacts on prime farmland in Illinois. We 

have completed a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Federal Form AD-1006) for the corridor from 

Shipman IL to Godfrey IL in Jersey, Macoupin and Madison Counties. As the project progresses, we will 

need to complete additional ratings when corridor alignments have been finalized. 

Our contact for the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating process is Tim Prescott at (217) 353-6637. 

Please contact him directly if you have questions or need additional information. 

Sincerely, 

State Conservationist 

cc: 

R. Ziehm, ASTC, USDA-NRCS, 502 Comfort Drive, Suite 0, Marion, IL 62959 A1 

J. Harryman, DC, USDA-NRCS, 2031 Mascoutah Avenue, Belleville, Illinois 62220 

D. Steinman, DC, USDA-NRCS, 7205 Marine Road, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 

A. Holmes, ASTC, USDA-NRCS, PO Box 19281, St. Fairgrounds, Springfield, IL62794 A2 

B. Dickerson, DC, USDA-NRCS, 1650 5th Street Road, Lincoln, Illinois 62656 

H. Pyle, DC, USDA-NRCAS, 2623 Sunrise Drive, Suite 1, Springfield, Illinois 62703-7302 

J. Jackson, DC, USDA-NRCS, 300 Carlinville Plaza, Carlinville, Illinois 62626 

C. Nance, DC, USDA-NRCS, 604 East Franklin, Jerseyville, Illinois 62052-9701 

D. McCallon, ASTC, USDA-NRCS, 3605 N. IL Route 47, Suite C, Morris, IL 60450 A3 

R. Edwards, DC, USDA-NRCS, 1201 S. Gougar Road, New Lenox, Illinois 60450 

R. Briggs, DC, USDA-NRCS, 2315 Dean Street, Suite 100, St. Charles, Illinois 60175 

J. Hamer, DC, USDA-NRCS, 3605 N. Illinois Route 47, Suite B, Morris, Illinois 60450 

E. McTaggert, DC, USDA-NRCS, 1510 West Reynolds, Pontiac, Illinois 61764 

K. Bohnhoff, DC, USDA-NRCS, 402 North Kays Drive, Normal, Illinois 61761 

G.Struben, SSS, NRCS, 2118 West Park Court, Champaign, IL 61821 

T. Prescott, Res Inv Specialist, USDA-NRCS, 2118 West Park Court, Champaign, IL 61821 

TP:IL_DOT _Hlgh_Speed_raiLcomment 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people 

conserve, maintain, and Improve our natural resources and environment. 
STATE OF ILLINOIS 

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION 

TRANSPORTATION BUREAU / RAIL SAFETY SECTION Michael E. Stead Rail Safety Program Administrator 

527 E. Capitol Avenue, Springfield, IL 62701

Telephone [217] 782-7660 Fax [217] 524-4637 

www.icc.illinois.gov 

 

July 27, 2012

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter

Director, Division of Public and Intermodal

Illinois Department of Transportation

100 W. Randolph, Suite 6-600

Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Shacter:

This office has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) that the 

Illinois Department of Transportation prepared for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, 

Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor (Chicago-St. Louis HSR Corridor) Program. The 

Draft EIS includes a Tier 1 corridor-level evaluation and a Tier 2 project-level evaluation 

for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

comments on both documents. 

This office has conducted a review of the Tier 1 evaluation of the Chicago-St. Louis 

HSR Corridor and the Tier 2 evaluation for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project. 

Our comments are outlined on the enclosed document.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions, 

or need additional information, please contact me at (217) 557-1285 or 

mstead@icc.illinois.gov. 

Very truly yours,

Michael E. Stead

Rail Safety Program Administrator

Enclosure
Illinois Commerce Commission

Transportation Bureau-Rail Safety Section Comments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor Program

1

TIER 1 Document

1. Section 4 (Affected Environment) of the Tier 1 DEIS document: Section 4.16.2.2

(Highway-Rail Crossing) indicates that the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have regulatory 

jurisdiction over safety at crossings, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966. 

In Illinois, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has regulatory jurisdiction 

over safety at crossings. In addition, no mention is made of pedestrian-rail 

crossings or private highway-rail or pedestrian-rail crossings. This section needs 

to be rewritten to include that information. A suggested rewrite is noted below:

There are two kinds of crossings: highway-rail and pedestrian-rail. Where a

roadway, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway crosses the track at the same 

elevation, this is called a “grade” crossing. Where a roadway, sidewalk or 

pedestrian trail/bikeway passes over the tracks via an “overpass” bridge structure

or passes under a railroad track via an underpass bridge structure, these 

crossings are referred to as “grade separated.” 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FRA have regulatory 

jurisdiction over safety at crossings, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966 

(HSA) (23 USC 401 et seq.). The HSA governs the distribution of federal funds to 

states aimed at eliminating hazards at highway-rail grade crossings. USDOT has 

issued regulations that address crossing safety and provides federal funding for 

the installation and improvement of warning devices through state departments 

of transportation. In addition to federal oversight and funding, states also monitor 

crossings and, in many cases designate funding to complement the federal

funds.

Jurisdiction over highway-rail grade crossings falls primarily to the states. This

authority is set forth in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA

2007a). Each state department of transportation is required to periodically 

inspect highway-rail grade crossings and to determine the adequacy of warning 

devices at each location, as well as to order safety improvements. USDOT 

oversees and approves the state determinations.

In Illinois, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has regulatory jurisdiction 

over safety at all public crossings (625 ILCS 5/18c-7401). No public road, 

highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway shall be constructed across 

the track of any rail carrier at grade, nor shall the track of any rail carrier be 

constructed across a public road, highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian 

trail/bikeway at grade, without permission of the ICC.
Illinois Commerce Commission

Transportation Bureau-Rail Safety Section Comments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor Program

2

The ICC also has the power to require the separation of grades at any proposed 

crossing where a public road, highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian 

trail/bikeway may cross the tracks of a rail carrier. 

 

All warning signs or automatic warning devices installed at public crossings in 

Illinois must meet the minimum requirements of 92 Illinois Administrative Code 

1535. In addition, all warning signs or warning devices installed at crossings 

must comply with FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 

(23 CFR 646.214[b][1[). The MUTCD provides standards for the types of warning 

devices that must be installed at all highway-rail grade crossings (FHWA 2007b). 

FRA issued regulations under its railroad safety authority that impose minimum 

standards for highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR 234‐236). FRA maintains 

information for each highway-rail grade crossing based on information provided 

by the states and the railroads. FRA and FHWA coordinate research efforts 

related to highway-rail grade crossing collisions and provide guidance and 

solutions to problems.

2. Appendix E:

a. General - No information is shown for the installation of warning signs or 

automatic warning devices at pedestrian-rail grade and private highwayrail grade crossings. Based upon diagnostic reviews conducted at all 

crossings located within the Dwight to St. Louis portion of the Chicago-St. 

Louis Corridor, for which FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 

January 2004, it is our understanding that these types of crossings are 

scheduled to receive safety improvements. The proposed improvements 

should be included in the DEIS. 

b. Page E-4 - Why are Four Quad Gates proposed for the Stephen Street 

grade crossing (MP 25.15) under the “No-Build” option?

c. Page E-4 - Why are no warning devices shown for the West 135th Street 

grade crossing (MP 28.95) under the “no-Build” and Build” columns?

d. Page E-17 – The Washington Street grade crossing (MP 73.95) is listed 

as being equipped with Four Quad Gates under “Existing”. Our records 

show the crossing is currently equipped with standard flashers and gates 

(Gates).

e. Page E-27 - There appears to be a duplicate entry for Sangamon Avenue. 

The railroad bridge that carries UP tracks over Sangamon Avenue (MP 

182.80) is also listed on page E-26.

f. Page E-28 - There is an entry for Iles Avenue (MP 187.35) with no 

crossing protection listed under the three conditions. According to the ICC 

and FRA databases, this crossing has been closed since December 2001.
Illinois Commerce Commission

Transportation Bureau-Rail Safety Section Comments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor Program

3

g. Page E-31 - Four Quad Gates are proposed for Allen Road (MP 216.08) 

under the No-Build and Build options. It should be noted that local 

highway authority agreed to voluntary close this crossing (Commission 

Order T12-0048).

h. Page E-33 - Four Quad Gates are proposed for Gilworth Lane (MP 

234.57) under the No-Build and Build options. It should be noted that local 

highway authority has voluntary closed this crossing (Commission Order 

T12-0007).

i. Page E-35 - An existing public grade crossing is not listed (Evans Street, 

Wood River, AAR/DOT #294453D, MP 264.20). Please note that an 

agreement is out to the parties regarding the voluntary closure of this 

crossing.

j. Page E-35 – E. 7th Street (MP 265.2) is a private crossing according to 

ICC and FRA records.

k. Page E-35 – The Pontoon Road (MP 272.64) grade crossing has been 

replaced with a Railroad-Under grade separation (Commission Order T02-

0067).

l. Page E-35 - Four Quad Gates are proposed for 20th Street (MP 275.05) 

under the No-Build and Build options. This crossing has been closed since 

March 2011 (Commission Order T02-0067).

m. Page E-36 – Four Quad Gates are proposed for 2 grade crossings in St 

Clair County (Missouri Avenue and Trendley Avenue) under the No-Build 

and Build options. Diagnostic reviews of these crossings for proposed 

improvements were not included under the ROD project. Which railroad 

owns these crossings?

TIER 2 Document

1. Section 5 (Environmental Consequences) - The drawing on page 5-15 is the 

same as the drawing on page 5-12. It is assumed that the drawing on page 3-15 

should show proposed improvements at Ash Street crossing of CN’s track (19th

Street Corridor).

3. Section 4 (Affected Environment) of the Tier 2 DEIS document: Section 4.13.2.2 

(Highway-Rail Crossing) indicates that the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have regulatory 

jurisdiction over safety at crossings, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966. 

In Illinois, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has regulatory jurisdiction 

over safety at crossings. In addition, no mention is made of pedestrian-rail 

crossings or private highway-rail or pedestrian-rail crossings. This section needs 

to be rewritten to include that information. A suggested rewrite is noted below:
Illinois Commerce Commission

Transportation Bureau-Rail Safety Section Comments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor Program

4

There are two kinds of crossings: highway-rail and pedestrian-rail. Where a

roadway, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway crosses the track at the same 

elevation, this is called a “grade” crossing. Where a roadway, sidewalk or 

pedestrian trail/bikeway passes over the tracks via an “overpass” bridge structure

or passes under a railroad track via an underpass bridge structure, these 

crossings are referred to as “grade separated.” 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FRA have regulatory 

jurisdiction over safety at crossings, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966 

(HSA) (23 USC 401 et seq.). The HSA governs the distribution of federal funds to 

states aimed at eliminating hazards at highway-rail grade crossings. USDOT has 

issued regulations that address crossing safety and provides federal funding for 

the installation and improvement of warning devices through state departments 

of transportation. In addition to federal oversight and funding, states also monitor 

crossings and, in many cases designate funding to complement the federal 

funds.

Jurisdiction over highway-rail grade crossings falls primarily to the states. This 

authority is set forth in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA 

2007a). Each state department of transportation is required to periodically 

inspect highway-rail grade crossings and to determine the adequacy of warning 

devices at each location, as well as to order safety improvements. USDOT 

oversees and approves the state determinations.

In Illinois, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has regulatory jurisdiction 

over safety at all public crossings (625 ILCS 5/18c-7401). No public road, 

highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway shall be constructed across 

the track of any rail carrier at grade, nor shall the track of any rail carrier be 

constructed across a public road, highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian 

trail/bikeway at grade, without permission of the ICC.

The ICC also has the power to require the separation of grades at any proposed 

crossing where a public road, highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian 

trail/bikeway may cross the tracks of a rail carrier. 

 

All warning signs or automatic warning devices installed at public crossings in 

Illinois must meet the minimum requirements of 92 Illinois Administrative Code 

1535. In addition, all warning signs or warning devices installed at crossings 

must comply with FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 

(23 CFR 646.214[b][1[). The MUTCD provides standards for the types of warning 

devices that must be installed at all highway-rail grade crossings (FHWA 2007b). 
Illinois Commerce Commission

Transportation Bureau-Rail Safety Section Comments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor Program

5

FRA issued regulations under its railroad safety authority that impose minimum 

standards for highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR 234‐236). FRA maintains 

information for each highway-rail grade crossing based on information provided 

by the states and the railroads. FRA and FHWA coordinate research efforts 

related to highway-rail grade crossing collisions and provide guidance and 

solutions to problems.
United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

Denver Federal Center, Building 67, Room 118 

Post Office Box 25007 (D-108) 

Denver, Colorado 80225-0007

August 13, 2012 

9043.1 

ER-12/0473 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Director, Division of Public and Intermodal 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6–600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Dear Mr. Schacter: 

As requested, the Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Tier 1/Tier 2 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the High Speed Rail (HSR) Corridor Program from 

Chicago, Illinois, Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri, by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. The Department offers the following 

comments and recommendations for your consideration: 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reviewed the information provided in the Tier One 

Draft EIS, and has participated in reviewing the project as a Cooperating Agency. During Tier 

One, FWS checked their records for the presence of federally listed species, FWS trust resources, 

and other fish and wildlife resources that may be affected by the proposed project. They also 

reviewed their previous correspondence providing comments on the Chicago to St. Louis HSR 

project, including associated Environmental Assessments (EAs) within the corridor. Their 

previous correspondence is enclosed. They have previously provided information about the 

federally endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), federally endangered 

leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa), and the federally threatened eastern prairie fringed orchid 

(Platanthera leucophaea). These comments, as well as informal consultation on the project in 

2001, identified potential impacts to the Hine’s emerald dragonfly and its designated critical 

habitat from some of the proposed alternatives. 

With respect to those portions of the Draft EIS, the FWS offers the following comments and 

recommendations for your consideration. 
Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 2 

Alternatives (Section 3) 

Subsection 3.3 - Build Alternatives 

3.3.4.2 – Screening Results for Chicago to Joliet Alternatives 

This section summarizes the results of Tier One screening of alternatives in the Chicago to Joliet 

portion of the project and provides reasons for eliminating alternatives from further 

consideration. Two alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 4D, are proposed to be carried forward for 

further study in Tier One based on meeting the screening criteria and purpose and need. 

The information and data developed for the Tier One screening process (summarized in Table 

3.3-3) does not support the elimination of all alternatives except for Alternatives 2 and 4D. 

Specifically, Alternatives 4A through 4C should be retained because for some of the criteria for 

which they were eliminated, these alternatives performed as well (or nearly as well) as 

Alternative 4D, which is being retained. Some of these criteria include: operational issues, 

estimated average number of trains per day, capital cost, wetland impacts, and environmental 

justice. Alternatives 4A through 4C also performed better than Alternative 2 for some criteria 

such as: capital cost, right of way impacts, and threatened and endangered species impacts. 

Similarly, Alternative 3 should be strongly considered for retention because it performed as well 

(or nearly as well) as Alternatives 4D and Alternative 2 for several criteria. As noted in previous 

correspondence, Alternative 2 would impact the Hine’s emerald dragonfly and its critical habitat, 

while Alternatives 4A through 4D and Alternative 3 would not impact the endangered species. 

Additionally, the 4A through 4D alternatives, from Joliet to Chicago, appear to be on the same 

alignment as the Route 4 alternative for the Chicago to Omaha City high speed rail project. 

Improvements to the portions of these alternatives between Joliet and Chicago would eliminate 

impacts to the Hine’s emerald dragonfly and could serve both high speed rail projects. 

Affected Environment (Section 4) 

Subsection 4.6 – Natural Resources 

4.6.3 – Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section discusses critical habitat for the endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Alternatives 

1 and 2 intersect or are adjacent to designated critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. 

Please see the attached figure prepared by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, based on the 

project shapefiles that were provided by FRA and FWS’s own data on critical habitat locations. 

None of the other Chicago to Joliet alignments would impact federally threatened or endangered 

species or designated critical habitat. 

Environmental Consequences (Section 5) 

Subsection 5.6 - Natural Resources 

5.6.2.2 – Ecological Resources 

The Affected Environment section (Section 4) contains information about the habitat and 

wildlife located within the project corridor, including: birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and 
Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 3 

aquatic species. However, the Environmental Consequences section does not provide 

information about the wildlife that could be impacted by the proposed project (besides federal 

and state listed species). Wildlife identified in Section 4 should be discussed in the Tier One 

Final EIS. In particular, impacts to migratory birds should be discussed in detail as the project 

would result in the loss of suitable habitat (e.g., forest, prairie, and wetland). Additionally, 

migratory birds could be impacted by noise generated from the project. This issue will be further 

discussed in Subsection 5.8. 

This section also briefly discusses the impacts on wildlife habitat. Impacts to forest, prairie 

remnants, and protected natural areas are discussed. However, the discussion of protected 

natural areas focuses mostly on prairie remnants and state protected natural areas (e.g., nature 

preserves). The Tier One Final EIS should focus on all natural areas that are providing wildlife 

habitat along the corridor. It would be more useful if the exhibits showed the natural areas that 

would be impacted in their entirety, rather than showing only the portions that would be 

impacted within the corridor right-of-way. 

5.6.2.3 – Threatened and Endangered Species 

Limited information is provided about the potential impact to the federally endangered Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly, though the impacts to its critical habitat and impacts to flying adults via 

collisions with trains are noted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided substantial 

information regarding potential impacts to this species in our prior correspondence on this 

project, since we first reviewed the 2003 EIS and including our most recent comments on the 

2011 Dwight to Joliet EA. These comments are enclosed and all comments regarding impacts to 

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly should be incorporated in the Tier One Final EIS. We agree that 

further coordination on threatened and endangered species impacts will continue during the Tier 

Two stage of the project, for all federally listed species (as suitable habitat may occur within the 

proposed right-of-ways). We anticipate that review of the habitat assessments and associated 

floristic quality assessments discussed in our November 10, 2011, correspondence with FRA 

regarding the Joliet to Dwight Project EA and FONSI will be needed to determine if suitable 

habitat is present for other federally listed species throughout the alternative corridors. 

The Draft EIS should clarify that the Hine’s emerald dragonfly occurs not only in designated 

critical habitat but is additionally known to occur around critical habitat units 4 and 7. 

Table 5.6-3, which lists state threatened and endangered species, should include the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly, which is also a state endangered species. The EIS should also be edited to 

clarify that the state listed species leafy prairie clover is also federally listed as endangered, and 

the state listed Mead’s milkweed is federally listed as a threatened species. The leafy prairie 

clover has at least three occurrences (rather than only one as indicated in table 5.6-3). We are 

not aware of any Mead’s milkweed populations within the corridor. 

 

The Draft EIS states that the anticipated increase in train-dragonfly collisions from selection of 

an alternative that crosses the habitat of this endangered species would have a minimal overall 

impact on the species. We are not aware of any information that would support this conclusion. 

We anticipate the need for further analysis of the scope and consequences of increased traindragonfly collisions during the Tier 2 process and during the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

section 7 consultations. We will need to assess the degree of impact that increased train-
Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 4 

dragonfly collisions will have on the persistence and resilience of the Hine’s emerald dragonfly 

population, and whether the level of impact could lead to extirpation of the population from 

Illinois. This endangered dragonfly persists at only a few sites in Illinois and one of the retained 

alternatives (Alternative 2) runs through remaining habitat for the species. Impacts to even a 

small amount of critical habitat acreage could result in extirpation of an endangered species if 

adult mortality occurs at unsustainable levels. 

Subsection 5.8 – Noise and Vibration 

Noise impacts to wildlife resources, particularly migratory birds, are not discussed in this 

section. Several studies indicate that noise can adversely affect migratory birds (we can provide 

reference materials to FRA if requested). The Tier One Final EIS should evaluate the potential 

impacts to wildlife, particularly migratory birds, from increased noise and vibration resulting 

from increases in train frequency and speed for the alternatives considered. These impacts 

should be addressed in either Subsection 5.6 or 5.8. 

Subsection 5.17 - Permits 

This section includes the statement that “if endangered species are identified during program 

implementation, all activity in the immediate area would cease.” We assume this statement 

should read “if previously unknown occurrences of endangered species are identified during 

program implementation, all activity in the immediate area would cease. Coordination with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated as required by section 7 of the ESA.” 

For all federally listed species and critical habitat already known to occur in the project area, we 

anticipate continuing to work with FRA through the Tier 2 and informal consultation process to 

avoid and minimize impacts to listed species in compliance with section 7 of the ESA. 

Subsection 5.19 – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

5.19.2 – Build Alternatives 

In regard to indirect impacts, the Tier One Draft EIS focuses on the project’s potential to induce 

development in the vicinity of the train stations and determined that the project would result in 

negligible indirect impacts. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service believes this assessment of 

indirect impacts is narrow in scope and that FRA should expand its assessment of indirect 

impacts. Specifically, FRA should consider the indirect impacts to wildlife and their habitats. 

Examples of these indirect impacts would be the loss or fragmentation of forested, wetland, or 

prairie habitats and the associated loss of wildlife. Potential impacts of noise on wildlife could 

also be considered as there are areas identified within the corridor with concentrations of 

migratory birds that could be affected (e.g., Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie). The Tier Two 

Final EIS should fully assess all possible impacts to wildlife resources. 

Similarly, the Tier Two Final EIS should fully assess all possible impacts to wildlife resources as 

related to cumulative impacts. The Tier One Draft EIS indicates that cumulative impacts to 

natural resources would be negligible. Without additional information on the habitats described 

in the Draft EIS, specifically for information on these natural resources outside of the project 

corridor, we cannot concur with FRA’s assessment. 
Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 5 

FRA also discusses the increase in freight traffic south of Joliet due to the intermodal facility and 

Metra’s plans to expand service along the Metra Heritage Corridor. Cumulative impacts to 

wildlife resources that could result from these changes should be addressed in the Tier Two Final 

EIS as well. 

Subsection 5.21 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

This section is confusing, in that it appears to say that impacts to prairie and forested habitats are 

irreversible, but that the build alternatives would not result in irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources for natural areas, threatened or endangered species, or water 

resources. We do not agree with this assessment since prairie and forested habitats are natural 

areas which could provide habitat for listed species. We note also that this section should 

recognize that extirpation of a federally listed species from its critical habitat would represent an 

irretrievable commitment of resources. The Tier Two Final EIS should be updated to consider 

all wildlife resources. 

Subsection 5.23 – Potential Mitigation Measures 

This section discusses mitigation for impacts to prairies, federal and state listed species, and 

wetlands. However, this section does not discuss mitigation for impacts to forested areas or 

migratory birds (from loss of habitat or noise impacts); mitigation for these should be discussed 

in the Tier Two Final EIS. 

In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had specific comments on wildlife. 

4.6.2.3 Wildlife 

Pg. 4-32: The document provides a cursory description of wildlife that may be impacted; 

however, the information on bird species and population trends is limited. We suggest the Final 

EIS include the data and information available in the USGS Breeding Bird Survey, and in Sauer 

et al, 2011. The USGS Breeding Bird Survey includes routes that are close to the project area. 

The locations of the routes can be found on the internet at 

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/results/routemaps/routeMapStatic.html

The list of species for each route can be found on 

https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/PublicDataInterface/index.cfm

Routes can be found on http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/results/routemaps/routeAssignMap.cfm. 

Additional information on the trends in bird populations can be found at http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html and in the publication: Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. 

Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link, 2011, The North American Breeding Bird 

Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, MD; available online at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs. 
Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 6 

This letter provides comment under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, as amended P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956 (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (40 Stat. 755, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), 

and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (54 Stat. 250, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 668-668d). 

The Department has a continuing interest in working with the Federal Railroad Administration to 

ensure impacts to resources of concern to the Department are adequately addressed. For 

continued consultation and coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, please contact 

Mr. Shawn Cirton, 1250 South Grove Ave, Suite 103, Barrington, Illinois 60010-2668, telephone 

(847) 381-2253, ext. 19. If you have any questions concerning USGS comments, please contact 

Gary LeCain, Environmental Document Reviews Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey, Office of 

the Director, Mail Stop 423, Reston, Virginia 20192, telephone (303) 236-1475. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Robert F. Stewart 

 Regional Environmental Officer 

Enclosures 

cc: 

Andrea E. Martin, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., MS–20 

Washington, DC 20590 
Enclosure 1 – Chicago to St. Louis HSR Letters
United States Department ofthe Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SER~ICE Chicago Ecological Services Field Office 

1250 South Grove Avenue, Suite 103 

Barrington, Illinois 600 I 0 

Phone: (847) 381-2253 Fax: (847) 381-2285 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

FWSI AES-ClFO/2009-F A-0558 

Andrea Martin 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-404 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

November 10,2011 

This responds to your emails to Mr. Shawn Chion, of this office, dated November 2 and 

November 8, 2011, requesting comments on the Joliet to Dwight Project Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA is dated April 2011; 

however, we did not receive the EA for this project until November 2,2011. 

We previously received a March 18,2011, letter from the Illinois Depmiment of 

Transportation (!DOT) seeking comments during "the information gathering phase" (i.e., the 

scoping process); we responded with comments on April I, 2011. Our comments expressed 

our view that the Joliet to Dwight Project and the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Project 

were connected actions that should not be evaluated separately. IDOT responded to our April 

1,2011, letter with a letter dated September 9, 2011, saying that the Joliet to Dwight Project 

was independent of the Tier I Environmental Impact Statement study for the Chicago to St. 

Louis High Speed Rail Project and that the two projects had independent utility. 

We have also received a letter from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) dated August 

15,2011, seeking concurrence on your dete1minations of "no effect" for the Hine's emerald 

dragonfly, sheepnose mussel, snuffbox mussel, lakeside daisy, Mead's milkweed, eastem 

massasauga rattlesnake, and eastem prairie fringed orchid related to your section 7 

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Please note that we do not provide 

concun-ence on "no effect" determinations made by Federal agencies. FRA's letter also 

indicated that surveys had been conducted for the eastem prairie fringed orchid and that 

surveys for the leafy prairie clover had been scheduled during the flowering for that species. 

We would need to review the results ofthe surveys in order to determine if we agree with 

FRA's determinations for the eastem prairie fi'inged orchid and the leafy prairie clover. We 

still have not seen those surveys. Likewise, to determine whether all suitable habitat for those 

species along the cOlTidor has been identified, we would need to review the wetland 

delineations and associated floristic quality assessments for the project. 
moT's March 18,2011, letter indicated that our comments would be incorporated into the EA 

and that a draft EA would be submitted to our office. We did not receive a draft EA to review 

until last week. FRA has requested that we provide any comments to them on the EA and 

FONSI by November 10, 2011, despite our only recently receiving the documents. In addition, 

. FRA has not provided to us the requested surveys and wetland infonnation. Therefore, we 

cannot provide comments by the November 10,2011, deadline on the potential impacts to fish 

and wildlife resources, since we have not had the opportunity to review the surveys and 

associated infOlmation, as described in the August 15, 2011, letter and in mOT's September 9, 

2011, letter. 

Additionally, in FRA's August 15,2011, letter, regarding section 7 consultation, it states that 

the Joliet to Dwight Project is part of the Chicago to st. Louis High Speed Rail Program. 

Please be aware that our section 7 related comments for the Joliet to Dwight Project are 

separate from and are not intended to address future section 7 comments for the Chicago to St. 

Louis High Speed Rail Program (since FRA and mOT indicated that the Joliet to Dwight 

Project is independent of the High Speed Rail Project in mOT's September 9, 2011, letter). 

This letter provides comment under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, as amended P.L. 91-190,42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 661 et seq) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 884. as 

amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr.Shawn Cirton at 847/381-2253, ext. 19. 

cc: USEPA, West 

USACOE, Chernich 

USFS-Midewin, Thakali 

USFWS, Woeber 

mOT, Weber 

Sincerely, 

Louise Clemency 

Field Supervisor 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE . 

Chicago Ecological Services Field Office 

1250 South Grove Avenue, Suite 103 

BaITington, Illinois 600 I 0 

Phone: (847) 381-2253 Fax: (847) 381-2285 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

FWSI AES-CIFO/2009-F A-0558 

George Weber 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

filE COpy 

April 1,2011 

This responds to your letter dated March 18, 2011 requesting comments for the preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Union Pacific Railroad's (UPRR) Dwight-Joliet 

Improvement project. The proposed improvements would occur between Joliet, Illinois to 

Dwight, Illinois and would be located on the Chicago to St. Louis corridor. The project would 

consist of three components located within UPRR's Joliet Subdivision. 

We provided comments to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on May 19,2010 

(enclosed) for an EA and Categorical Exclusion which covers the same UPRR rail line as the 

pl'oposed project. We also provided comments to your office on October 19,2010 (enclosed) 

that responded to a request for comments for the Tier 1 Service Level EA for the Chicago to St. 

Louis High Speed Passenger Rail (HSR) project. Most recently, we commented on FRA's 

Notice of Intent (N0l), dated Febmary 14, 2011 for the Tier 1 Enviroiunental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the Chicago to St. Louis HSR project. Our comments for the NOl were the same as our 

October 19, 2010 comments. 

We have reviewed the information provided with your most recent letter. Your letter indicates 

that the Illinois Depmiment of Transportation (IDOT) is seeking grant funding from the FRA for 

the proposed improvements. As we noted in our May 19,2010 letter, we do not believe that it is 

appropriate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the proposed 

UPRR Dwight-Joliet Improvement project separately from the larger Chicago to St. Louis HSR 

project. As we also noted in previous correspondence, the proposed improvements would not be 

occurring but for the larger HSR project. It is inappropriate under NEPA to evaluate fragmented 

segments of a larger project (i.e., piecemealing), especially when individual project segments 

represent a commitment of resources that may constrain the selection of alternatives for the 

overall project. 
George Weber 2 

NEP A states that the scope of analysis is to be detelmined by the range of actions, impacts and 

altematives to be considered in the plamling effOli (§ 1508.25). The range of actions includes 

cOilllected actions, which are described as closely related actions which shall be discussed in the 

same impact statement. The NEPA notes that actions are cOilllected if they: (i) automatically 

trigger other actions which may require EISs; (ii) cailllot or will not proceed unless other actions 

are taken previously or simultaneously; (iii) are i¥terdependent patis of a larger action and 

depend on the larger action for their justification. Therefore, we believe that the UPRR DwightJoliet Improvement project atld Chicago to St. Louis HSR project are cOilllected actions that 

should not be evaluated separately and that the cOilllected actions should be. evaluated as pati of 

the Tier 1 EIS for the Chicago to St. Louis HSR project. 

We are also concemed that authorization of the UPRR Dwight-Joliet Improvement project could 

prematurely lead to elimination of practicable altematives, between Joliet and Chicago, to the 

prefened altemative for the larger Chicago to St. Louis HSR project. The map attached to your 

March 18, 2011 letter shows that improvements would begin along the Joliet Subdivision, north 

ofI-80 (MP 36.7). The most recent map shared with us on March 1,2011, at the Chicago to St. 

Louis HSR Agency Scoping meeting, shows the Chicago to Joliet altematives with altematives 

that tie into the Joliet Subdivision south ofI-80. Again, we are concemed that authorization of 

the proposed improvement project could lead to the premature identification of a preferred 

altemative or elimination of other practicable alternatives. 

This letter provides comment under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of 

National Enviroillllental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852 as atnended P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 

et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 884. as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 etseq.). 

Tfyou have any questions, please contact Mr. Shawn Cirton at 847/381-2253, ext. 19 or Mr. 

Kristopher Lah at 847/381-2253, ext. 15. 

Enclosures 

cc: FRA, Wendy Messenger 

USEP A, Keillleth Westlake 

USCOE, Kathy Chemich 

FWS RIFO, Heidi Woeber 

Sincerely, 

Louise Clemency 

Field Supervisor 
United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

FWS/AES-CIFO/9-FA-0558 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Chicago Ecological Services Field Office 

1250 South Grove Avenue, Suite 103 

Barrington, Illinois 60010 

Phone: (847) 381-2253 Fax: (847)381-2285 

Wendy L. Messenger 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Office of Railroad Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Messenger: 

FISfI & 'V&.nLlFE 

i.j 

May 19,2010 

This letter is written in regard to the proposed Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Passenger Rail 

Service (HSR) project. We provided a letter to the Illinois Department of Transportation 

(IDOT) dated October 19,2010 (enclosed) that responded to a request for conmlents on the Tier 

I Service Level Environmental Assessment (EA) for the HSR project. That letter provided 

detailed information on the consultation process required under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 as amended. On October 15,2009, we also gave a powerpoint presentation 

during a Webinar with you and other folks involved in the HSR project (enclosed) which gave an 

overview of the section 7 consultation process and the threatened and endangered species issues 

related to the Chicago to St. Louis HSR project. 

We have also been made aware that the work on a Tier I EIS (similar to a Feasibility Study) will 

begin soon and is scheduled for completion sometime in the spring of2011; it will include a 

double-track corridor with multiple options for Springfield. North of Dwight a minimum of 3 

altematives will be evaluated to determine a preferred altemative. By fall 2011 a Tier 1 Final 

EISIROD is expected to be issued for the Chicago-St. Louis double-track corridor. 

One of the most effective methods of streamlining section 7 consultation is for the Service, 

action agencies, and applicants to coordinate early and often throughout the consultation and 

design processes. This guidance is designed to assist consultation participants in conducting the 

appropriate level of coordination at the appropriate times in the consultation process. The 

guidance presented in the enclosed document is optional; however, it is strongly recommended 

that these coordination steps be implemented to help ensure the establishment of a complete 

administrative record and a smooth consultation process. The attached guidance describes 
Wendy L. Messenger 

sixteen steps, in four distinct stages, for efficiently coordinating the NEP A and section 7 

consultation processes. 

2 

We have also enclosed for your reference a "recovery scorecard" which provides an overview of 

the status and reco;rerylneeds for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. This may assist you in assessing 

impacts to the spec,ies and proposing appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures for the HI'R,l 

We are in receipt of two letters dated April 30, 2010 from Mr. George Weber of the mOT 

Bureau of Railroads. These letters were seeking input and comments on new railroad siding 

projects from Braidwood (MP 58.26) to Braceville (MP 60.44), and from Joliet (MP 36.8) to 

Elwood (MP 44.69). Trese construction projects are clearly indicated as being a part ofthe 

Chicago to St. Louis corridor that will be studied in the development of a full Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). However, these two construction projects are apparently being pursued 

separately at this time due to some potential FRA grant funding, It does not seem appropriate, 

however, to evaluate these two proposed construction projects separately because they would not 

be occuring but for the larger HSR Chicago to St. Louis project. We have provided information 

about the resources of concern to our agency in our previous letter (enclosed), however, we 

believe that evaluating and pursuing permitting for these projects separately amounts to 

piecemealing. 

This letter provides comment under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852 as amended P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 

et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 884. as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 
Wendy L. Messenger 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Kristopher Lah at 847/381-2253, ext. 15 or Mr. 

Jeffrey Mengler at ext 17 or jeffrey _ mengler@fWs.gov. 

enclosures 

cc: USEPA: Kenneth Westlake 

USCOE: Kathy Chemich 

FRA: Daniel Orlaskey 

Sincerely, 

Janice C. Engle 

Field Supervisor 

FWS Rock Island Illinois Field Office: Heidi Woeber 

FWS Law Enforcement: Craig Tabor 

mOT BRR: George Weber 

FHW A: JD Stevenson 

3 
United States Department of the Interior 

IN REPLY REFER TO; 

FWSI AES-ClF0I2009-F A-0558 

Mr. George Weber 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Chicago Ecological Services Field Office 

1250 South Grove Avenue, Suite 103 

Barrington, Illinois 600 I 0 

Phone: (847) 381-2253 Fax: (847) 381-2285 

Bureau of Railroads Bureau Chief 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 W. Randolph 

Suite 6-600 

Chicago, TIiinois 60601 

Dear Mr. Weber: 

October 19,2009 

This responds to your request for comments on the Tier 1 Service Level Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Passenger Rail Service (HSR) project. 

lllinois Department of Transportation and Missouri Department of Transportation, in 

conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are evaluating the reestablishment 

of passenger rail service between the aforementioned cities. The Tier 1 Service Level EA 

addresses the service level issues that would be part of the initial operations and the proposed 

alternatives. The Tier 2 Project Level analyses would address specific project level activities. 

We provide comments as they relate to fish and wildlife resources that may be affected by 

construction and operation of the proposed project. 

We reviewed the information provided in your Tier 1 Service Level EA. We checked our records 

for the presence offederally listed species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) trust 

resources, and other fish and wildlife resources that may be affected by the proposed project. 

Based on our review we offer the following comments that should be addressed in the Tier 2 

Project Level EA. 

General Comments 

The Tier 1 Service Level EA does not adequately identifY adverse impacts to the Service's trust 

resources (federally listed species and migratory birds) and does not fully disclose impacts to 

other wildlife. 
Mr. George Weber 2 

Applicable Regulations and Permits 

• Clarification is needed regarding the requirement to address federally listed species and 

critical habitat under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). 

Section 7(a)(2) requires each Federal agency to insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or 

carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence oflisted species or destroy or 

adversely modifY designated critical habitat prior to a project going forward. Since the HSR 

project would involve funding from the FRA, we assume that they would be the lead Federal 

action agency. In addition, since this project bas the potential (see below) to affect a listed 

species or critical habitat, the Federal action agency must consult with the USFWS under section 

7 of the ESA before final decisions can be made under the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). Although consultation was initiated on the HSR project by the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) on impacts to the federally endangered Hine's emerald dragonfly, 

FHWA suspended consultation in 2001. At this time consultation has not been reinitiated for 

this project. 

In order to initiate consultation a Federal action agency must submit a consultation 

request to the USFWS with a biological assessment that includes a description of the action, 

description of the specific area that may be affected, description of the manner in which the 

action may affect listed resources, an analysis of cumulative effects and any relevant reports or 

other information. Within 30 days of receipt of an initiation package, the USFWS can provide 

written acknowledgement ofthe consultation request, advise tbe Federal action agency of any 

data deficiencies and request either the missing data or a written statement that the data are not 

available. The USFWS tben issues a biological opinion within 135 days ofinitiation of 

consultation. The biological opinion includes: the opinion of the USFWS as to whether or not a 

Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or 

adversely modifY designated critical habitat; jeopardize the continued existence of species 

proposed for listing; or adversely modifY proposed critical habitat. In addition, the biolOogical 

opinion may authorize incidental take of a listed species provided that the Federal action agency 

complies with any terms and conditions included. 

• The Tier 1 Service Level EA fails to identifY the need to address the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (MBTA). Under tbe MBT A it is illegal to "take" migratory 

birds, their eggs, feathers or nests. Take is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities." Removal of inactive nests of 

migratory birds should not be accomplished prior to consultation with the USFWS. A permit 

may be required for removal of inactive nests. In addition, Executive Order 13186 directs 

Federal departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the MBT A. 

• The Tier 1 Service Level EA fails to identifY the need to address the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (FWCA). The FWCA authorizes the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Commerce to provide assistance to and cooperate with Federal and State 

agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, as well 

as to study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on 

wildlife. In addition, the FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the fish and wildlife 

agencies of States wbere the "waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or 
Mr. George Weber 3 

authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted or otherwise controlled or modified" 

by any agency under a Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose 

of "preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources." 

• The Tier 1 Service Level EA fails to identifY the need to address the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (BGEP A). Although bald eagles were removed from 

the Federal list of threatened and endangered species, they remain protected under the BGEP A. 

The BGEPA prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from 

"taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The BGEPA defines "lake" as "pursue, 

shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." Under the BGEPA 

"disturb" means: "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to 

cause, based on the best scientific information available: 1) injury to an eagle; 2) a decrease in its 

productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or 

3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

behavior." In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from 

human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles 

are not present, if, upon the eagle's retum, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree 

that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, 

death or nest abandonment. 

Alternatives 

Selection of a preferred alternative at this time fails to take Federal threatened and endangered 

species and designated critical habitat into consideration. Selection of a preferred alternative 

without consideration of federally listed entities reduces potential to identifY reasonable and 

prudent alternatives that would avoid potentially jeopardizing the survival and recovery of listed 

species. Selection of a preferred alternative should not be made until the Federal Railway 

Administration has completed consultation on the project under section 7 of the ESA. Please see 

information below regarding three federally listed species and critical habitat under the 

"Threatened and Endangered Species" section below. 

Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation 

Noise and Vibration 

The Tier 2 EA should evaluate whether wildlife, particularly migratory birds, would be affected 

by noise and vibration from the possible increase in frequency and speed of trains for both 

alternatives. 

Groundwater 

The Tier 2 EA and a Biological Assessment should evaluate the potential for groundwater 

contamination and disturbance to hydrologic systems within the Canadian National- Illinois 

CentrallUnion Pacific and Rock Island District Alignments. Construction and operation 

activities within these alignments may result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly. 
Mr. George Weber 4 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section simply provides a list of state and federally threatened, endangered, and candidate 

species and fails to describe construction and operation impacts to those species. The list is 

incomplete. Federally listed entities missing from the list include the threatened eastern prairie 

fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) and endangered leafY prairie clover (Daleafoliosa) in 

Will County and designated critical habitat for the endangered Hine's emerald dragonfly 

(Somatoch/ora hineana) in Cook, DuPage and Will Counties. In addition, the section fails to 

address the need for Federal agencies to consult with the USFWS on impacts. While the Tier 1 

Service Level EA describes previous work completed under NEPA, it does not describe previous 

consultation related to this project under the ESA. 

Previously three alternative routes were proposed and at that time the Federal action agency 

(FHW A) was infonned that HSR along the Canadian National- Illinois CentrallUnion Pacific 

alternative would impact the Hine's emerald dragonfly; whereas, the Norfolk Southern 

Alignment and Metra Rock Island District Alignment alternatives would not impact the Hine's 

emerald dragonfly. The FHWA initiated section 7 consultation and submitted a biological 

assessment that addressed impacts related to HSR train traffic but not take related to existing 

train traffic on the Canadian National - Illinois CentrallUnion Pacific Alignment. The biological 

assessment on the HSR estimated increased take of 16 adult Hine's emerald dragonflies a year: 

Additional trains have since been added to the Canadian National - Illinois CentrallUnion Pacitlc 

Alignment and are not in compliance with the ESA. On February 15,2007 we reconuuended 

that Canadian National Railway Corporation consider participating in the development of a 

habitat conservation plan for the Hine' s emerald dragonfly as a way to authorize existing take 

from operations on the Canadian National - Illinois CentraVUnion Pacific alignment. Canadian 

National Railway Corporation is currently not participating in the habitat conservation planning 

process leaving the ongoing take unresolved. 

On May 10,2001 the USFWS informed the FHW A that increased mortality of 16 Hine's emerald 

dragonflies per year, based on a population estimate of35 adults at Long Run Seep Nature 

Preserve, would be an adverse affect that the population could not sustain. This level of impact 

could potentially reduce the survival and recovery ofHine's emerald dragonfly and therefore 

jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The USFWS proposed measures (e.g. 

alternatives, train speeds, tunnel, etc.) to avoid or minimize take. The FHW A withdrew the 

Chicago-Dwight Illinois segment of the project from further analysis in the Envirorunental 

Impact Statement and suspended section 7 consultation leaving this issue unresolved. 

Since 2001 new infonnation has become available regarding federally listed species and critical 

. habitat in the project area. The USFWS has verified that Hine's emerald dragonflies breed at 

Long Run Seep Nature Preserve and that the species crosses the DesPlaines River. In addition, 

the current population estimate ofHine's emerald dragonflies for Long Run Seep Nature 

Preserve is 8 adults. In 2007 critical habitat was designated for the Hine's emerald dragonfly and 

the Canadian National - Illinois CentraVUnion Pacific alternative passes through critical habitat 

unit 7. 
Mr. George Weber 5 

In addition to impacts to the Hine's emerald dragonfly and designated critical habitat for the 

species the Tier I EA neglects to address impacts to the federally endangered leafy prairie clover 

and eastern prairie fringed orchid. Both species and their habitat occur along the Canadian 

National - lllinois CentralfUnion Pacific and Metra Rock Island District Alignment alternatives. 

No federally threatened, endangered, candidate species or designated critical habitat are known to 

occur along the Norfolk Southern Alignment alternative. 

Special Lands 

The Tier 2 EA should describe and identifY alI natural areas providing habitat for wildlife 

resources adjacent to the proposed alternatives. These natural areas would include state nature 

preserves and county forest preserves which provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife 

resources. For example, Long Run Seep and Grant Creek Nature Preserves are important natural 

areas that contain State and Federal threatened and endangered species and are located along the 

Canadian National - Illinois CentrallUnion Pacific Alignment. A figure should be provided in 

the Tier 2 EA that shows all natural areas along the proposed alternatives. 

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

The Tier 2 EA should fully disclose all indirect and cumulative impacts to natural resources. The 

Tier 1 EA only discusses anticipated beneficial impacts from the two alternatives. Indirect and 

cumulative impacts such as those that could occur to streams, wetlands, water quality, etc. as a 

result of proposed track upgrades should be indentified as well. 

These comments only address activities within the Chicago Illinois Field Office coverage area, 

which ends at the Will-Grundy County border for the Canadian National- Illinois CentralfUnion 

Pacific and Metra Rock Island District Alignment alternatives and at the Will-Kankakee County 

border for the Norfolk Southern Alignment alternative. The Service's Rock Island Field Office 

should be contacted for comments outside of our coverage area in Illinois and the Columbia 

Missouri Field Office should be contacted for comments in Missouri. 

This letter provides comment under the authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852 as amended P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.c. 

4321 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 

et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 884. as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 
Mr. George Weber 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Kristopher Lah at 847/381-2253, ext. 15. 

cc: USEPA: Kenneth Westlake 

USCOE: Kathy Chemich 

Sincerely, 

Janice C. Engle 

Acting Field Supervisor 

FRA: Wendy Messenger and Daniel Or!askey 

FWS Rock Island Illinois Field Office: Heidi Woeber 

FWS Law Enforcement: Craig Tabor 

6 
Enclosure 2 – HSR Critical Habitat Map 

 
Will County

Cook County

DuPage County

Will County

Cook County

DuPage County

BNSF Line 1

CNRR Line 2

NSRRNIRC Line 3

NIRCAlt Line 4

Line 5 (a-d)

Line 6 (a-d)

HED CHUs

Counties

Chicago - St. Louis High

Speed Rail Line Alternatives Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 16N

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.5 Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 3 Miles

0 2 4 8 Miles
Andrea Martin 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

AUG 2 0 2012 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.S., Mail Stop 20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Comment on the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Program 

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, CEQ # 20120213 

and the associated Volume II Springfield Rail Improvement Project 

Tier 2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

In accordance with U,S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responsibilities under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), we 

have reviewed the June 2012 Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail (HSR) Program. The project proposes 

to improve public transportation service capacity, mode choice, rail speed and reliability for the 

Chicago to St. Louis corridor. Compared to the dominant mode of corridor travel, the 

automobile, HSR would improve safety and sustainability for travel along this urban linkage. 

The Tier 1 DEIS describes the no-build alternative and identifies four build alternative routes for 

Amtrak passenger rail service between the Chicago Union Station and the St. Louis Gateway 

Multimodal Center. The HSR build proposals will further complete double tracking of the 

existing corridor right-of-way (ROW), add additional siding tracks, analyze further rail crossing 

upgrades (including at-grade crossings, separating rail, highway and pedestrian crossings, 

crossings of waterways and floodplains), and station improvements for additional passenger 

capacity, parking, and access at Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Normal, Lincoln, Carlinville and Alton, 

Illinois. Three major rail bridges are proposed for upgrade by this project; the 21st Street Bridge 

over the Chicago River, and the MacArthur and Merchant Bridges over the Mississippi River at 

St. Louis. It is not clear whether additional tracks to increase freight train capacities near St. 

Louis have been adequately represented in this DEIS. Page 6-28 clearly states some 

improvements are needed to accommodate both the anticipated rise in freight train numbers 

along with the HSR operations across the two Mississippi River bridges. Page 3-19 indicates a 

parallel maintenance access road will also be constructed along the entire length of the corridor. 

The Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FElS) anticipates identifying all the potential 

impacts to human and natural resources these corridor improvements might cause. Subsequent 

I 

Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) 
Tier 2 NEP A analysis and final design permitting would specify the actual impacts and 

mitigation for those impacts. 

Some areas of potential impacts were well presented, e.g Parks under Section 4(f) of the 

Transportation Act, while the information on other areas was insufficient or had contradictions 

between the text and associated tables, e.g. Environmental Justice and Threatened and 

Endangered Species. 

A second volume Tier 2 DEIS is provided in association with the Tier I DEIS. This second 

volume in essence is completion of a normal non-tiered EIS for the section of the HSR project 

passing through Springfield, Illinois. The Springfield Tier 2 DEIS specifically amends the 

Purpose and Need of the Tier 1 DEIS for the more specific Springfield segment ofthe project. 

The Springfield Tier 2 DEIS more fully describes the no-build and five potential build 

alternatives for this segment of the Chicago to St. Louis corridor, identified in the Tier 1 DEIS as 

Section 5. The Springfield Tier 2 DEIS selects two of those five build alternatives to carry 

forward to the Springfield Tier 2 FEIS. The Springfield Tier 2 DEIS subsequently presents the 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for the no-build and the two build 

alternatives carried forward. 

EPA Region 5 has participated in early project scoping on September 18,2009, and agreed to be 

a Cooperating Agency on August 16, 2011. EPA involvement should be acknowledged in 

Appendix F: Agency Coordination. We later participated in phone conference call updates and 

encouraged establishing agency coordination meetings in a letter dated December 22, 2011. Due 

to the complexity of the project, these coordination meetings have helped clarify what the nobuild alternative is, ongoing constructions of the no-build alternative projects in the corridor, and 

issues in the project corridor raised by these proposed Tier I and Tier 2 projects. The no-build 

projects are being built as a result of earlier NEP A analyses. 

The following list of comments on Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Environmental Impacts, and 

Mitigation of Impacts presents the basis for our rating the Tier 1 DEIS and associated Springfield 

Tier 2 DEIS as EC-2, Environmental Concerns - Insufficient Information. See the attached 

Summary of Rating Definitions for an explanation of EPA's rating system. EPA recognizes the 

potential benefits a well planned high-speed rail mode alternative can provide to our region, 

including improved air quality, energy efficiency, and traveler safety. 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

The background, current conditions and developing conditions that warrant considering the 

proposed HSR project are concisely presented and provide some clarification of this complex rail 

system. 

We understand that the Purpose and Need for this proposal is not to improve freight train 

operations in this corridor and that simply acknowledging this connected action is sufficient and 

adequate at this point in the DEIS. 

2 
An increased ridership is projected for the 2030 horizon year. This raises some questions not 

addressed in the presentation. What is the minimum increase in ridership needed to support this 

project? Assuming the project is very successful in attracting new rail travelers, what maximum 

capacity will the proposed build rail system be able to accommodate? What is the ridership 

growth potential ofthis build proposal before additional system construction would be needed? 

If built as proposed, the projected ridership could vary dependent upon the fares charged. The 

DEIS indicates that this HSR proposal (maximum speed of 110 miles per hour) is an incremental 

step toward much higher speeds in the more distant future. The FEIS should discuss what 

factors would influence the pursuit of further upgrades to passenger train speeds in this corridor. 

We recommend the Springfield Tier 2 DEIS Purpose and Need acknowledge the existing City of 

Springfield's planning goals of enhancing the City'S Medical Center Campus and establishing a 

10th Street Multimodal Center. These factors are subsequently used in the alternatives analysis 

as arguments for dropping alternatives. 

ALTERNATIVES 

We commend the provision of screening selection comparison charts such as Table 3.3-3 and 

similar tables, Table 3-12, in the Springfield Tier 2 DElS. They assist understanding what 

factors went into certain decisions. 

Because both the Merchants and the MacArthur Bridges over the Mississippi River are to be 

reconstructed, the FEIS should clearly commit to both Alton to St. Louis alternatives and include 

the impacts of both bridge improvements in the environmental analysis. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

We appreciate that project impacts and costs are concisely summarized in Table 5.22-1. 

Freight Trains - The Purpose and Need section of the DEIS acknowledges the increased freight 

train operations associated with this project. However, the impacts of changes in freight 

operations are not discussed in the DEIS. These changes in freight operations include increase in 

the number of trains, length and speed of trains and shifts in time of day to accommodate HSR. 

These changes resulting from this project are direct impacts, add their own direct and indirect 

impacts, and should be fully addressed in the NEP A analysis. Section 6.3 (HSR train operations 

impacting freight rail service) does not address these project-related changes to freight 

operations. Subjects such as air quality, wildlife impacts, noise, vibration, crossing delays in 

urban and rural settings, and accident/spills/safety should be included in the impacts analysis. 

Regarding HSR impacts on freight trains, we recommend the FEIS include discussion of the 

compression wave and air turbulence impacts of HSR trains on passing freight trains, particularly 

those trains carrying containers. This air turbulence should also be discussed for its potential 

impacts to pedestrians (flying debris) and vehicles at crossings. 

3 
Major Bridges - The DEIS describes some design consideration for the three major river 

crossing bridges, the Chicago River at 21 st Street and the St. Louis Merchants and MacArthur 

bridges over the Mississippi River, but impacts are not addressed. We recommend the FEIS 

specify all impacts associated with these reconstructions. 

Access Road - There is no DEIS discussion concerning impacts related to the access road to be 

constructed the entire length of the rail corridor, which is mentioned on page 3-19. While such a 

road may be simple by comparison to the railroad work, this should be studied to assure possible 

impacts are fully considered. One area may be threatened and endangered species and their 

habitats. Other topics that should be addressed in the NEP A documents for this construct include 

but are not limited to waterway crossings where applicable, stormwater runoff, dust particulate 

matter and safety. 

A significant number of Special Waste sites are noted within 200 feet of the rail right-of-way 

(ROW) (Table 5.14-2 and Appendix D). Most of these will only be a problem if construction 

disturbs them, and this is one specific reason the access road needs to be included in this NEP A 

analysis. 

Threatened and Endangered Species - Summary information on page S-II and Section 5.6.2.3 

addresses impacts to threatened and endangered species. After acknowledging critical habitat 

impacts and potential increased direct hit losses for the federally listed Hine's emerald dragonfly 

in proposed Section I, between Chicago and Joliet, the summary concludes "that this potential 

increase would have a minimal overall impact on the species." The D EIS does not provide 

information to support snch a statement. The DEIS states, based upon computer database 

research, "there are no other critical habitats or known habitats or populations of other federally 

listed species located within the study corridor that could be impacted by any program 

alternatives. However, this Tier 1 level of documentation did not include detailed fieldwork to 

identify potential habitats and/or populations of threatened and endangered species." 

Table 5.6-3 and Exhibit 5.6-1 indicate that there is some knowledge of State Threatened and 

Endangered Species along the corridor south of Joliet. While the project intent is to remain on 

existing ROW, we recommend that FRA undertake a field analysis in this area. We believe 

gathering such information is prudent now so that options to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts 

can be considered in the FEIS. We are concerned about construction impacts to species of 

concern within the existing ROW. A fuller identification ofthese sites may find areas adjacent 

to the ROW are also of concern. 

Migratory Birds - The DEIS analysis does not address protection of migratory birds, which is a 

concern for the corridor. Recent studies by the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) confirm 

that railroad corridors do have an impact on wildlife including migratory birds. We recommend 

further coordination with FWS and IDNR to address these impacts, including but not limited to 

impacts at the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. 

Environmental Justice - The DEIS provides limited information on Environmental Justice 

(EJ). The EJ Section simply identifies the number of qualifying EJ census blocks, with no 

4 
accounting for numbers of people or households in those census blocks that may be impacted, 

Table 5.2-1. The DEIS lacks support for a conclusion of "no disproportionate impacts." 

Sensitive Noise Receptors - The noise and vibration impacts to receptors, especially EJ 

communities, are important. We commend the construction and operation reductions and 

mitigations presented on pages 5-54 through 5-58, and recommend these be clearly committed to 

in the FEIS. However, the noise analysis in Section 5.8.3 only considers train hom noise, and 

does not include the rail/wheel noise and distinct HSR noise(s) of operating trains at faster 

speeds. Here again, the freight traffic with heavy loads will contribute differently than the HSR 

trains and should be included in these DEIS impacts. We recommend the FEIS clearly delineate 

all project noise and vibration, so that impacts to sensitive community facilities and wildlife can 

be appropriately considered both in terms of decibels and increased numbers of HSR and freight 

trains. 

The DEIS is unclear as to the distance from the HSR corridor that was analyzed for sensitive 

receptors. Please clarify this in the FEIS. 

At-Grade Crossings - Appendix E presents the extensive list of rail crossings through the entire 

corridor. Most are grade separated and some additional ones, such as in Springfield, are being 

considered for grade separation. We recommend the FEIS discuss how increased speed and 

frequency of trains will affect users of the many at-grade private or commercial "access 

crossings. " 

Suiface Water Crossings - Some of the 216 stream crossings will be replaced and others 

lengthened to accommodate the additional tracks. We recommend the FEIS commit to using 

bridging and/or three-sided open bottom culverts for waterway crossings wherever possible, to 

retain natural functions and avoid disturbing stream beds. 

Sustainability - We commend your agency for its consideration of sustainability concepts, 

Section 6.1.1.4, and recommend those concepts be clearly committed to in the FEIS and included 

in project contracting documents. These include commitments to maintenance, energy 

efficiency, water use minimization, green buildings, and corridor development synergies. 

MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 

We commend the inclusion of Table S.5-1 as a concept. We recommend it be expanded in the 

FEIS to list all project mitigation commitments and their associated implementation schedules, 

locations, responsible parties, and monitoring/maintenance/adaptive management. 

The DEIS mentions wellhead protection areas as a concern, but does not discuss how the 

proposal will avoid, minimize, mitigate impacts to wellhead protection areas. While these may 

be Tier 2 level details for final resolution, the Tier 1 document should discuss how these might 

be approached. 

5 
We commend the DEIS for its many clear and helpful exhibits. However, some exhibits are too 

small or poorly labeled to convey adequate information, including but not limited to: Exhibits 

6.1-6 and 6.1-8 and the Springfield Tier 2 DEIS Exhibits 4-4 and 4-5. The Tier 1 DEIS includes 

stringline diagrams, Exhibits 6.1-4, through 6.1-9, which are more appropriately put in a 

technical appendix, as they are not self-explanatory to the general reader. The Springfield Tier 2 

DEIS exhibits in Section 5 are insufficiently labeled to clearly describe the alternatives. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review these documents. We look forward to coordinating with 

and providing feedback on the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Program as they are progressively 

developed. Please send me a hard copy and two CD digital copies of each NEP A document 

related to these projects. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss our comments further, 

please contact me or Norm West of my staff at (312)-353-5692 or at west.norman@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

~.~ ~./~Af"~;/. ~,,?"7>l''': Z~~~¥ ./ / 

Kermeth A. Westlake// / 

Chief, NEP A Impletllentation Section 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Enclosure: EPA Srnnmary of Rating Definitions 

Cc: Joseph E. Shacter, mOT 

6 
SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW UP ACTION* 

Environmental Impact of the Action 

LO-Lack of Objections 

The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the 

proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be 

accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal. 

EC-Environmental Concerns 

The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation 

measures that can reduce the environmental impacts. EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce these 

impacts. 

EO-Environmental Objections 

The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate 

protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or 

consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA 

intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. 

EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory 

The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are 

unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with 

the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the [mal £IS 

sate, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. 

Adequacy oftbe Impact Statement 

Category I-Adequate 

The EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alterative and 

those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collecting is 

necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information. 

Category 2-Insufficient Information 

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for the EPA to fully assess the environmental impacts that 

should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably 

available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the 

environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be 

included in tbe [mal EIS. 

Category 3 -Inadequate 

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the 

action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of 

alternatives analyzed in the draft £IS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant 

7 
environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data analyses, or discussions are of 

such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft E1S is 

adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review. and thus should be formally revised and made 

available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant 

impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. 

'From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of the Federal Actions Impacting the Environment 

8 
1 Old State Capitol Plaza 

Various Counties 

Chicago to St. Louis 

High Speed Rail Project 

Springfield, Illinois 62701-1512 

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Tier 2 Evaluation of Springfield Rail Improvements Project 

IHPA Log #011091109 

August 20, 2012 

Joseph Shacter 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Division of Public and Intermodal 

100 W. Randolph St., Suite 6 - 600 

Chicago, IL 60601 - 3229 

Dear Mr . Shacter: 

FAX (217) 782 - 8161 

www.illinois-history.gov 

We have reviewed the referenced documents in accordance with our responsibilities 

pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended. First, let me say that I really appreciate the time and effort that the 

Federal Railroad Administration, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the 

various consultants have devoted to this project to ensure cultural resources are 

fully considered during this planning process. 

These documents adequately identify historic resources and possible effects that 

will occur as a result of project implementation. 

We understand that for the Phase I for the project as a whole from Joliet to the 

Mississippi River, a literature search for historic properties was all that was 

performed but that a more in depth look at properties and affects to them will be 

completed as a part of the Phase II Environmental Impact Statement. 

For the Springfield Tier 2 portion, we concur that the loth Street Corridor will 

have minimal adverse effects to historic properties as compared to the 3rd Street 

corridor. We urge the loth Street Corridor be adopted as the preferred alternative. 

We look forward to continuing a more detailed consultation as the project moves into 

the next phase of planning. 

Sincerely, 

Anne 

~CL~~ E. Haaker 

Deputy State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

c: Brad Koldehoff, Illinois Department of Transportation 

Andrea Martin, U.S. Department o f Transportation 

Wal ter ZY~I} ~~~~~ter 1li ~~ ~~ f>a~'R ~E~~rj(s ?a~abTe~f~fWs9f-rl~~ ~8 not a voice or fax line. 
CN 

www.cn.ca 

August 15,2012 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Illinois Dept. of Transportation 

Division of Public and 

Intarmodal Transportation 

UI inois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Southern Reg ion 

Jim Vena 

Senior Vice President, Southern Region 

17641 South Ashland Avenue 

Homewood. Illinois 60430 

T 708.332.4550 

F 708.332.6839 

Jim .Vena@cn.ca 

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Chicago/St. Louis High Speed Rail 

Corridor Program 

Dear Mr. Shacter: 

In June, IDOT and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) to address, among other matters, various routing alternatives for 

IDOT's proposal to improve high-speed rail (HSR) passenger service between Chicago and St. 

Louis. IDOT has asked parties to comment on the DEIS by August 20, and CN appreciates the 

opportunity to do so. 

The DEIS includes a Tier l corridor-level evaluation that includes numerous routing alternatives, 

including several alternatives for the portion of the route between Chicago Union Station (CUS) 

and Joliet. Of those, the DEIS has recommended two options for further consideration: the 

current route, largely over CN, on which 10 Amtrak trains now run daily (Alternati ve 2), and a 

route using Metra's Rock Island Line (Alternative 4D). CN understands that after the comment 

period IDOT and FRA will fully review the alternatives analysis and include a recommendation 

for the preferred CUS-Joliet route to be used for HSR and other Amtrak trains as part of the final 

Environmental Impact Statement that is expected by the end of this year. 

The DEIS recognized that at-grade rail-rail crossings create significant concerns and noted that 

"it is being assumed that railroad flyovers would be provided to eliminate [] conflict point[s] and 

improve rail operational efficiencies along both the alternative and crossing railroad." DEIS,3-

7. Further, in its discussion of the Rock Island Line alternative, the DEIS specifically noted that 

improvements would include a "potential fl yover at EJ&E east of Joliet." DEIS, 3-29, 3-53. 

Consistent with the DEIS, CN strongly supports inclusion of a grade separation for the crossing 

of the Metra Rock Island Line and CN's EJ&E line east of Joliet (Rock Island Junction) as part 

of Alternative 4D. 
Such a grade separation would be imperative to the smooth operation of both the Rock Island 

and EJ&E lines under Alternative 4D. Since its January 2009 acquisition of the EJ&E, CN has 

begun moving additional freight trains over the EJ&E line that runs through the Metra-controlled 

interlocking at Rock Island Junction, with more trains expected as the transaction is fu lly 

implemented.

l As freight traffic has increased over the EJ&E, so have confli cts with trains 

moving over the Rock Island line, resulting in delays to traffi c moving through the interlocking. 

Shifting 10 daily Amtrak trains from the Joliet Sub to the Rock Island line plus HSR trains will 

add to these delays, as would added commuter service that Metra may contemplate over the 

Rock Island line, greatly impairing CN's operations and reducing the important public benefits in 

more efficient and fluid rail transportation in greater Chicago underlying CN's acquisition of 

EJ&E and the Surface Transportation Board's authorization of that transaction. 

For these reasons, CN urges FRA and IDOT to maintain the proposed grade separation of Rock 

Island Junction as part of Alternative 4D. With that proposed grade separation, and only with it, 

CN would support Alternative 40, and, indeed, would support Alternative 4D versus Alternative 

2 as the lower cost alternative likely offering the greatest overall public benefits. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Vena 

Senior Vice-President 

cc: Mr. Alexander Clifford 

Northeast lllinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) 

547 W. Jackson Blvd. 

Chicago, IL 60661 

I eN currentl y is moving on average almost 17 freight trains daily over thi s segment of the EJ&E line. See STB 

Monthly Operational Oversight Report for June 2012, Train Volumes, filed July 16, 2012, EJ&E Segment 7 

(JllIp:IIWWw.slbfinancedocket35087.comlhllnl/monlh lyreporls.html). In CN's operating plan for its acquisition of 

the EJ&E. which was fil ed with the Surface Transportation Board, it estimated that an average of 28 freight trains 

daily would eventually run over this segment. See CN-14, STB Finance Docket No. 35087, Calladiall Natiollal 

Railway Co. alld Gralld Tmllk Co'p.--Comrol--EJ&E West Co. , Allachmenl A.2, Segmenl 7, filed Jan. 3, 2008 

(copyallached). 
N 

.". 

-> 

Attachment A.2 

Potential Changes in Traffic on Affected EJ&E Rail Line Segments 

Traffic Changes on EJ&E Rail Line Segments in United States Affected 

by Canadian NationallEJ&E West Company Transaction 

Rail Line Sf.'l,meDI ikscription Freight - Train.s/DlI}' Fr~!g!,-t - Gross To~ay __ BlI.zma~ - CarsIDay_ 

I Segment Pen::ent 

Number From SUilion To Sration Road Base Change Total Bast: Mergt'd Dj[fcrencc Change Base M~rged DifT~n:nce 

I 1"> ,Rondout Leithton EJE 3.2 0.0 3.2 3,222 2,038 (1.184 -37% ---- -g:-4 9.4 - -. 

Leithlon Spaulding EJE 5.3 15.0 20.3 19.123 164.398 145.275 760% 18.1 183.3 165.2 

13SDauidinQ M,,-nger EJE 5.5 17.0 22.5 21.950 179.150 157.200 716% 29.0 209.4 180.4 

12 Mun er WeslChicago EJE 4.4 19.0 23.4 14.397 191.557 177.160 1230% 21.1 271.3 250.2 

11 West Chicago East Siding EJE 10.7 20.9 31.6 62,233 253,673 191.440 308% 30,7 r-- 315.2 'lOA I::: 

10 EaslSiding Walker EJE 15.7 23.8 39.5 87.162 307.411 220.249 253% 43. 

9 Walker Bridge Junction EJE 18.5 23.8 42.3 89.329 310.165 220.835 247% 4. 

I B Brickle Junction Rock Island Jet EJE 18.5 23.8 42.3 78,157 297.491 219.334 281% 46.9 39B. 

I 7 Rock Island Jcl Matiason EJE 6.4 21.9 28.3 35.375 233.576 198.201 560% 49.0 360 .. 

6 Matteson Chica 0 Hts EJE B.6 22.9 31.6 48,455 260,774 212.319 438% 78.7 496.1 

5 Chicago His Griffith EJE 10.2 23.9 342 51.696 268.910 217.214 420% 71.6 496.5 424.91 

4 Griffith Van Loon EJE 7,6 21.0 28.6 29,536 215.949 186,413 631% 44.7 421.5 376.8_1 

Van Loon Ivanhoe EJE 9.7 20,0 29.7 42.024 209.633 167,609 399% 45.5 399.3 353.8 

cavanauQh EJE 9.8 20.0 29.8 41.879 209.488 167.609 400% 45.5 399.3 353.81 

_ Gary ~_. EJE __ .. _ 11.8 20.0 _ 31.~ _ .14.098 __ 211.7OQ ~67.602 _ 380%<-- 52.5 406.3 .. __ 353M 

Ic:;ary _ IinQiana Harbor IEJE3.51 0,01 3.5\ 13.340\ 23.6811 lQ.J41 L. ...ZIl%L_ ~ _ 1.!Jl. 

-1 Indiana Harbor Hammond 1.4 

-2 Hammond 1.4 

NOTE: The traffic change numbers in the Attachments A 1. and A2. reflect changes that will result after complete implementation of the Transaction. The numbers reflect train counts and 

gross tons on each segment. with the same train potentially crossing multiple segments. Thus, the numbers for each segment are not addItive to determine the total number of trains or 

tonnage to be added on the entire length of EJ&EW. or to be subtracted from the eN lines. 
-, 

547 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 322-6900 TTY# 1-312-322-6774 

The way to really fly 

August 20, 2012 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Director, Division of Public and Intermodal 

Illinois Department ofTransportation 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Dear Mr. Shacler: 

Metra is pleased to have the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

has been prepared for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor Program. 

Metra has a vested interest in the outcomes of this project, and we look forward to working with IDOT 

as the vision for this projects is brought to its fruition. 

Metra supports the conclusion of the DEIS that further study is required to determine whether the 

CN/Heritage Corridor or the Metra/Rock Island District and Norfolk Southern route is preferable for the 

operation of HSR service between Joliet and Chicago. Metra requests the opportunity to provide input 

at all appropriate opportunities during this more detailed Tier 2 evaluation. Metra supports the 

development and analysis of the "Further improvements ... to support future additional commuter rail 

service," as described in the Summary (5-20). 

In the subsequent Tier 2 studies, Metra requests that additional efforts should be made to include all 

stakeholders, especially right-of-way owners in the process early and often during the studies. 

Additional detailed comments are provided in the attached document. 

Metra appreciates the opportunity to be involved in this process, and we look forward to continuing to 

work with the project team as this project moves forward, further addressing the transportation needs 

of the traveling public throughout the State of Illinois and beyond. 

Sincerely, 

Lynnette H. Ciavarella 

Senior Division Director 

Strategic Capital Planning/Grants Development 

Attached: specific comments 

lIlinobs Dept. of Transportation IVISlon of Public and 

Intermodal Transportation 

Metra is the registered selVice mark for the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad CorporatIon. 
Metra Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for 

the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor Program 

8/20/12 

General Comments: 

A. Metra supports the conclusion of the DEIS that further study is required to determine whether 

the CN/Heritage Corridor or the Metra/Rock Island District and Norfolk Southern route is 

preferable for the operation of HSR service between Joliet and Chicago. Metra requests the 

opportunity to provide input at all appropriate opportunities during this more detailed Tier 2 

evaluation. Metra supports the development and analYSis of the "Further improvements ... to 

support future additional commuter rail service," as described in the Summary (S-20). 

B. In the subsequent Tier 2 studies, additional efforts should be made to include all stakeholders, 

especially right-of-way owners in the process early and often during the studies. 

Specific Comments: 

S-19 The text asserts that Metra has no plans for changing or expanding the existing service along the 

Rock Island District. Note that Metra is currently embarking on a strategic planning effort and 

final determination of what service modifications or expansions are reflected in the resulting 

strategic plan have not yet been determined. Furthermore, Metra reserves the right to consider 

service expansions in the future in order to meet passenger demand and operating 

requirements. (see also 6-45) 

S-20 Note that Metra's plans to construct the new Romeoville Station on the Heritage Corridor, 

referenced as "a new station between Lemont and Lockport," are not dependent on the 

proposal to increase commuter service on this line. The current phrasing suggested they are 

related. (see also 6-45) 

S-22 Why is it assumed that the additional vehicular traffic that necessitates proposed parking 

expansions would not create any access or traffic congestion problems associated with the Build 

Alternatives? 

1-2 This list of anticipated decisions does not clearly reflect that the selection of the preferred 

alternative from Chicago to Joliet routing is subject to a further Tier 2 Analysis. This should be 

reflected to address this more clearly. 

3-33 Note that the proposed Metra HC station at Romeoville (135th Street) and the proposed Metra 

Rock Island station at Auburn Park (78th Street) should be reflected in this list that would require 

further study in Tier 2 environmental studies. These stations are currently being designed, but 

appropriate accommodates should be reflected into the station designs. 

3-53 Section 1 and Section 2- The text does not discuss the congestion at the 21st Street vertical lift 

bridge. There are over 100 passenger, freight and yard movement trains a day that use this 

1 
bridge. This bridge is a source of train congestion and delays. The EA evaluated building a new 

double track bridge over the Mississippi River at the Merchants Bridge location that has 64 

trains a day. Since this bridge has over 100 trains a day, the bridge and the associated track 

interlocking plants on both sides of the bridge should be evaluated. Since there are more train 

over this bridge that the Merchants Bridge, it would be logical for the study to consider adding a 

second double track bridge at the Chicago 21st Street Bridge location which would reduce 

running time a little, significantly reduce train delays and thus improve on-time performance. 

There is an operational double track railroad bridge that does not have tracks connecting to it 

anymore, the C&WI bridge just north of Torrence Avenue and 126th Street in Chicago over the 

Calumet River. This railroad bridge is a few feet longer than the existing 21st Street railroad 

bridge. 

Section - 2 The study does not address track and route capacity issues between 40th Street on 

the Metra RID and also on the NS between 40th Street and the 21st Street Chicago River Vertical 

Lift bridge. 

3-58 The assumption that a new station between Chicago and Joliet should be developed at 1-294 

ignores the fact that new highway entrance/exit ramps on 1-294 would likely be impossible or 

incredibly expensive due to existing geography including bridges over the Des Plaines River and 

the Sanitary & Ship Canal. The current access from 1-294 to the Metra Willow Springs Station 

via 75th Street, Willow Springs Road, Archer Avenue and Market Street provides easy access to 

an existing rail station location in this vicinity from an existing highway interchange that could 

be easily Signed to provide clear motorist direction to the station. We recommend removing or 

revising this reference accordingly. 

The need to analyze impacts in the Tier 2 study to existing Metra stations on both routes 

between Joliet and Chicago should be mentioned. Also, it may be better to analyze utilizing an 

existing Metra station that is convenient to the Interstate Highway system for HSR trains instead 

of building a new station. Passengers could easily transfer to and from Metra trains at that 

station in addition to Joliet. It would also reduce track maintenance problems associated with 

station platforms at an additional location. Pedestrian grade crossing improvements or 

pedestrian grade separations at Metra stations should be considered in the Tier 2 study. 

(see also 6-52) 

3-62 Since this appears to account for the largest source o'fvariation in the cost estimates between 

alternatives, the description in the first non-bulleted paragraph could be made clearer to the 

reader by specifically citing the number of flyovers proposed in each of the two Chicago to Joliet 

segments. The Joliet EJ&E flyover may negatively impact Metra's Joliet Coach Yard. This impact 

and related cost are not included in the document. There is no mention of potential additional 

crossovers on 3'd mainline track on the Metra RID alignment in the report. The potential 

construction of pedestrian underpasses at Metra stations is not mentioned nor included in the 

cost estimate. The current 2012 under construction Tinley Park 80th Avenue pedestrian tunnel 

underpass has a cost of $2 Million. 

3-62-4 The cost estimates do not appear to reflect additional costs for commuter station reconstruction 

when new grade separations are constructed on adjacent roadways. If this cost is reflected in 

the estimates, it should be clearly identified. The following locations proposed for highway 

grade separations may impact adjacent commuter rail station facilities: 

2 
\D Crossin Name Station Name 

1265 West 95th Street Longwood (95th Street) 

1261 West l03rd Street Washington Heights (103rd Street) 

12S2 West Vermont Street Vermont Street 

1244 139th Street Robbins 

1241 147th Street Midlothian 

1231 Oak Park Avenue Tinley Park 

1229 80th Avenue 80th Avenue 

SS4 West 135th Street Romeoville (proposed) 

6-13 Table 3 6.1-4 "Trains Per Day - Chicago to Joliet (Section2)" and the associated text need to be 

corrected. On an average basis, Metra operates an average of 23 engine and deadhead 

movements between LaSalle Street Station and our 47'h Street Yard. This table also does not 

reflect that IAIS operates three round-trips a day and yard movements out on the mainline, CSX 

operates one round trip a day and Chicago Rail Link operates two round trips a day for a total 

average of 12 freights a day on the RID mainline. Table 3 6.1-4 is also missing the freight and 

passenger traffic on the NS between 40th Street and the 21st Street vertical lift bridge over the 

Chicago River along with the over 100 trains a day on this bridge. 

The CREATE Program will connect the SWS to Metra's Rock Island District around 75th Street and 

those 30 scheduled trains a day will operate into LaSalle Street Station. The corresponding 

engine and deadhead movements between LaSalle Street Station and 47'h Street Yard would 

double to 46 movements on weekdays. This future impact on Rock Island District mainline and 

yard movements is not discussed in the report and should be added. A third mainline track from 

Gresham northward may be needed if HSR trains are also on this route. 

6-33 The text description for improvements in the "Build Alternatives" needs to add information 

about track and signal improvements on both routes between Joliet and Chicago and that this 

should be investigated in further detail in the Tier 2 analysis. 

6-34 The text description for improvements in the "Build Alternatives" needs to add information 

about station improvements on both routes between Joliet and Chicago and that this should be 

investigated in further detail in the Tier 2 analysis. 

6-35 Do the ridership estimates accurately account for the fact that travel within the Metra service 

area on Amtrak trains is only permitted for persons connecting from other Amtrak service (i.e. 

Chicago to Joliet Amtrak trips are only allowed to be purchased in combination with a trip from 

Chicago to somewhere beyond the Metra service territory)? 

6-47.1 In addition to 23 engine or train deadhead moves to and from the yard facilities at 47'h Street, 

the Metra Rock Island District operates four inbound and five outbound deadhead moves 

between LaSalle Street and Blue Island and one inbound deadhead move between Joliet and 

Blue Island. This should be made clear in the first paragraph on this page. 

Note that overnight and weekend storage and servicing of Rock Island District trains is also 

performed at the Blue Island Coach Yard. This should be made clear in the first paragraph on 

this page. 

3 
Add the following text: The CREATE Program will connect the SWS to Metra's Rock Island District 

around 7S'h Street and those 30 scheduled trains a day will operate into LaSalle Street Station. 

The corresponding engine and deadhead movements between LaSalle Street Station and 47'h 

Street Yard would double to 46 movements on weekdays. This future impact on Rock Island 

District mainline and yard movements is not discussed in the report and should be added. A 

third mainline track from Gresham northward may be needed if HSR trains are also on this 

route. 

The potential Rock Island District grade separation over the EJ&E may impact Metra's Joliet 

Coach Yard. The coach yard has a yard track on the south side of the mainline tracks in addition 

to the yard tracks north of the mainline tracks. 

The "Build Alternatives" do not address the train congestion at the 21" Street Vertical Lift bridge 

with over 100 trains and yard movements a day nor the train traffic on the NS between 40'h 

Street at the 21" Street lift bridge. The study analyzes adding a second double track bridge over 

the Mississippi River with 64 trains a day. Therefore the 21" Street lift bridge should get similar 

analysis. 

6-48 In the "Section 6.6.2", the text references "Appendix D", when it should reference "Appendix E" 

instead. 

8 This section does not reflect coordination efforts with the railroad owners. Descriptions of 

these efforts should be added to this chapter. In the subsequent Tier 2 studies, additional 

efforts should be made to include all stakeholders, especially right-of-way owners in the process 

early and often during the studies. 

4 

& ••• 
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 NORTH GRANDAvENUE EAST, P.O. BOX19276, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62794-9276 • (217) 782-3397 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR JOHN J. KIM, INTERIM DIRECTOR 

JUL ~ (} 20\2. 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Director, Division of Public and Intermodal 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3229 

RE: Draft EIS for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 

Dear Mr. Shacter: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor. 

The Agency has no objections to the project; however a permit will be required from the Division of 

Water Pollution Control for modifications to any existing sewer or the construction of new sewer mains 

or connections. In addition, a Section 401 water quality certification will have to be obtained. If one or 

more acres are disturbed during construction, a construction site activity stormwater NPEDS permit will 

be required as well. Please contact AI Keller at 217-782-0610 with questions. 

Also demolition, asbestos and lead paint should be addressed before actual repairs are preformed to 

ensure proper abatement is done if needed. If demolition and/or abatement are needed, notification 

will be required 10 days prior to the project start date. Contact Alan Grimmett for all questions on this 

matter at 217-557-1438. 

In addition, solid and hazardous waste must be properly disposed of or recycled. 

Sincerely, 

A302 N. Main Sl., Rockford, IL 61103 (815)987-7760 

595 S. Slale, Elgin, IL 60123 {8A7)608-3131 

2125 S. Firsl Sl., Chompaign, IL 61820 (217)278-5800 

2009 Mall Sl., Collinsville, IL 6223A (618)3A6-5120 

PLEASE PRINT ON RECYCLED PAPER 

Illinois Dept. of Transportation 

Division of Public and 

Intermodal Transportation 

9511 Harrison Sl., Des Plaines,lL 60016 {8A7)29A-4000 

5A07 N. Universily S1., Arbor 113, Peoda, IL 6161 A (309)693-5A62 

2309 W. Main Sl., Suile 116, Madan, IL 62959 (618)993-7200 

100 W. Randolph, Suile 10-300, Chicago, IL 60601 (312)81A-6026 
Town of 

Normal 

August 13,2012 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Director, Division of Public and Intermodal 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Re: Illinois High-Speed Rail- Chicago to St. Louis: Tier 1 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement Comment 

Dear Mr. Shacter: 

Town of Normal has reviewed the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail 

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comments 

below are submitted on behalf of the Town of Normal. 

The Tier 1 DEIS does not discuss or appear to consider the proposed the 

McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway that extends from the Village 

of McLean to approximately 2.5 miles north of the Village of Towanda. 

The McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project began in the late 

1990's. In 1999, McLean County and the municipalities of Bloomington, 

Chenoa, Lexington, Towanda, McLean and Normal entered into an 

intergovernmental agreement for the development of a bikeway in 

McLean County. The Project Development Report for this bikeway was 

approved by the Illinois Department of Transportation in September of 

2008. 

McLean County received funding for a section from Shirley to Fox Creek 

Road in southwest Bloomington in 2009, with constlUction of the bikeway 

taking place in 2010. McLean County received notification ofITEP 

funding in October of2010 for a section from Normal to Towanda. Phase 

II engineering is currently underway for this section with consttuction 

planned for the summer of2013. 

McLean County and the municipalities pmticipating in the project request 

that the Tier 1 DEIS be revised to acknowledge potential impacts of the 

Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail implementation on the proposed 

McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway. Particular attention should be 

given to the anticipated crossing improvements at the intersection of the 

high speed rail lines and Airport Road between the Town of Normal and 

((Co1llmitted to .s'erJ'ice Excellence" 

100 East Phoenix Avenue' Post Office Box 589 • Normal, JIIinois 61761-0589 

Telephone (309) 454-2444 • Fax (309) 454-9609 • TDD (309) 454-9630 

www.normul.org 
the Village of Towanda. Further areas of concern that we have about the 

interaction of the projects are as follows: 

As previously mentioned, construction of the bikeway between the Town 

of Normal and the Village of Towanda is planned for 2013. We are 

currently developing plans for this construction project, but we need to 

have plan details for the high speed rail improvements at the intersection 

of Airport Road and U.S. Route 66 to move forward. We do not want to 

build a piece of the bikeway at this location in 2013 and have it removed 

by a intersection reconstruction project in immediate future; however, this 

project is very important to the community and a long term delay in the 

project is not desirable either. The paliicipating municipalities would like 

a commitment on the planned timeframe for the intersection 

improvements to enable this section of the bikeway to move fOlward. 

Delays in the section of the project could also impede funding 

opportunities for future sections ofthe bikeway. 

The need for safety and security fencing along this section of the bikeway 

is also a concern for the paJiicipating municipalities. If it is determined 

that fencing is required, the cost of such fencing installation and 

maintenance should be the responsibility of the High-Speed Rail project, 

as the fencing is not required to protect the bikeway as previously 

approved in the Project Development RepOli. 

Coordination between the McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway 

project and the High-Speed Rail project is cunently underway. 

Representatives from mOT, McLean County, and the engineering 

consultant teams for the U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project and the Chicago 

to St. Louis High-Speed Rail met on June 8, 2012, in Bloomington, 

Illinois and on June 21, 2012, in Chicago, Illinois to discuss the projects. 

We look fOlward to paJiicipating in the successful completion of this 

project and will put forth every effort possible to ensure that outcome. If 

you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at 

(309) 454-9574. 

Thank you for the oppOliunity to provide input on tlus matter. 

Sincerely, , \~ 

h~C ,~::j~ Gene C. Brown, P .E. 

Town of Normal Engineer 
McLEAN COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

MCRPC 115 E. Washington St., M1 03 • Bloomington, IL 61701-4089 

Phone: 309-828-4331 • Fax: 309-827-4773 • wwww.mcplan.org 

August 15, 2012 

Via Electronic Transmittal and First Class Mail 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Director, Division of Public and Intennodal 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

fRi~a;~o[lf f[J AUG 2 7 ZOIZ IJl) 

Illinois Dept. of T 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 6060 I 

Re: Chicago to St. Louis: Tier I Draft EnvirolUnental Impact Statement 

Comment by McLean County Regional Planning Commission 

McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway 

Dear Mr. Shacter, 

Divi'ian of P~brSPortBtion Intarmada' Tran Ie and 'portal/an 

As the Metropolitan Plmming Organization and the agency responsible for coordinating longrange planning throughout McLean County, this Commission has reviewed the Chicago to St. 

Louis High-Speed Rail Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and offers the 

following comments. 

The Tier I DEIS does not discuss or appear to consider the proposed the McLean County - U.S. 

Route 66 Bikeway that extends from the Village of McLean to approximately 2.5 miles north of 

the Village of Towanda. The McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project began in the late 

1990's. In 1999, McLean County and the municipalities of Bloomington, Nonnal, Chenoa, 

Lexington, Towanda, and McLean entered into an intergovenunental agreement for the 

development of a bikeway in McLean County. The Project Development Report for this 

bikeway was approved by the Illinois Department of Transportation in September of2008. 

McLean County received funding for a section from Shirley to Fox Creek Road in southwest 

Bloomington in 2009, with construction of the bikeway taking place in 2010. McLean County 

received notification ofITEP funding in October of2010 for a section from Nonnal to Towanda. 

Phase II engineering is currently underway for this section with construction plalU1ed for the 

summer of2013. 

McLean County and the municipalities participating in the project request that the Tier I DEIS 

be revised to acknowledge potential impacts of the Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail 

implementation on the proposed McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway. Particular attention 

should be given to the anticipated crossing improvements at the intersection ofthe high speed 

rail lines and Airport Road between the Town ofNorrnal and the Village of Towanda. Further 

areas of concern that we have about the interaction of the projects are as follows: 

Planning for the Future through Regional Cooperation 

Carl Teichman/Chairman • George Benjamin, Vice Chairman • Joseph Butcher • Mary Jefferson 

Jhun Medina' linda Olson' Jay Reece' Tari Renner' Tim Strader' GeorgeWalden • TylerWrezinski 
· . 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Page 2 

August 15, 2012 

As previously mentioned, construction of the bikeway between the Town ofNonnal and the 

Village of Towanda is planned for 2013. We are currently developing plans for this construction 

project, but we need to have plan details for the high speed rail improvements at the intersection 

of Airport Road and u.s. Route 66 to move forward. We do not want to build a piece of the 

bikeway at this location in 2013 and have it removed by a intersection reconstruction project in 

immediate future; however, this project is very important to the community and a long tenn 

delay in the project is not desirable either. The participating municipalities would like a 

commitment on the plmmed timefi·ame for the intersection improvements to enable this section 

of the bikeway to move forward. Delays in the section of the project could also impede funding 

oppOltunities for future sections of the bikeway. 

The need for safety and security fencing along this section of the bikeway is also a concern for 

the pm1icipating municipalities. If it is detennined that fencing is required, the cost of such 

fencing installation and maintenance should be the responsibility of the High-Speed Rail project, 

as the fencing is not required to protect the bikeway as previously approved in the Project 

Development Report. 

Coordination between the McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project and the High-Speed 

Rail project is currently underway. Representatives from IDOT, McLean County, and the 

engineering consultant teams for the u.S. Route 66 Bikeway project and the Chicago to St. Louis 

High-Speed Rail met on June 8, 2012, in Bloomington, Illinois and on June 21 , 2012, in 

Chicago, Illinois to discuss the projects. We anticipate that these discussions will continue, but 

believe that this direct coordination effort should be reflected and supported in the formal Tier I 

Environmental Statement. 

We look forward to participating in the successful completion of this project and will make every 

effort to ensure that outcome. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please 

contact Jennifer Sicks of our staff at (309) 828-4331, Ext. 24 or jsicks@mcplan.org. 

Thank you for the opp0l1unity to provide input on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

{jJ~~ Paul E. Russell, AICP 

Executive Director 

CC: Miriam Gutierrez 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Division of Public & Interrnodal Transportation 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3229 

Miriam.Gutierrez@illinois.gov 
From: Striffler, Scot [mailto:Scot.M.Striffler@uscg.mil]

Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:15 AM

To: Shacter, Joseph E.

Cc: Stanifer, William <William.B.Stanifer@uscg.mil>; Soule, Lee

<Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil>

Subject: Draft EIS (Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor Program)

Dear Mr. Shacter,

I am responding to the Draft EIS and request for comments regarding the Tier

1 evaluation for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program.

Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, would only be involved for aspects of

the Program within the Chicago to Joliet portion of the study. Our Area of

Responsibility includes Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal, Des Plaines River, and

Chicago River northward of Lockport Lock in Lockport, IL (approximate river

mile 291.0 and above).

The alternatives carried forward within the Chicago to Joliet area (#2 and

#4D) appear to include utilization of the existing AMTRAK bridge and

facilities over South Branch of Chicago River (between Canal Road and 18th

Street on the river). The drawbridge provides 10-feet of vertical clearance

for vessels in the closed position. The existing AMTRAK bridge is the only

drawbridge on South Branch of Chicago River required to open for every

commercial tug/barge passage between downtown Chicago and Lockport, as well

as for other commercial or recreational vessels that cannot pass under the

drawbridge in the closed position. It is our understanding the existing

drawbridge carries Union Pacific freight trains, AMTRAK trains, and other

local commuter trains into Union Station. It is a very busy crossing for

both rail and vessel traffic. Efficient management and operation of this

drawbridge is necessary for the safety of both rail and vessel traffic.

Generally, any proposed modification, addition, or replacement of the

drawbridge crossing at the existing AMTRAK bridge across South Branch would

need to be reviewed by this office for possible permit requirement and

vessel traffic coordination. Any other existing or new crossings over the

waterways mentioned above that could become part of the ongoing evaluation

would need to be reviewed by the Coast Guard for potential permitting or

coordination activity.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS document. I can

be contacted at the number below if there are any questions, or to discuss

further. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Scot Striffler

Bridge Program Manager
Ninth Coast Guard District 

(216) 902-6087 

Fax: (216) 902-6088 

Scot.M.Striffler@uscg.mil
August 20, 2012 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Director, Division of Public and Intermodal 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3229 

Dear Mr. Shacter: 

The CREATE partners are pleased to present our review comments on the Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed 

Rail Tier 1 DEIS. As you know, the CREATE (Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation 

Efficiency) Program is a public/private partnership between the U.S. DOT, the State of Illinois, City of 

Chicago, Metra, Amtrak, and the nation's freight railroads. A program of regional and national 

significance, CREATE consists of 70 separate yet interrelated projects, including roadway and rail 

overpasses and underpasses, improvements to existing viaducts and grade crossings, and upgrades to 

tracks, switches, and signal and dispatch systems. The benefits of the program include improved 

passenger rail service, reduced freight rail congestion to boost regional and national economic 

competiveness, reduced motorist delay due to rail conflicts at grade crossings, enhanced public safety, 

enhanced economic development, creating and retaining jobs, improved air quality, and reductions in 

noise from idling or slow-moving trains. 

The CREATE partners have identified ten improvement projects that intersect with the High-Speed Rail 

(HSR) alternatives under consideration. The table below lists the ten projects with the project number, 

project name and DEIS Alternative that causes the potential CREATE/HSR conflict. In the following 

pages, we have attached more detailed information on each of these CREATE projects and our specific 

comments with regard to the potential conflicts. Additional information on the Program and its projects 

can be found in the CREATE Program Final Feasibility Plan (January 2011), which serves as a NEPA 

compliant decision-making document for the CREATE Program. 

CREATE 

Project Number Project Name DEIS Build Alternative with Potential Conflict 

P1 63rd and State (Englewood) Flyover Alternatives C & D 

P2* 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project Alternatives C & D 

P5 Brighton Park Flyover Alternatives A & B 

P6 CP Canal Flyover (IHB/CN Flyover) Alternatives A & B 

B8 Summit Signalization Alternatives A & B 

B9/EW1** Argo Connections/Clearing Yard Main Lines Alternatives A & B 

WA2 Ogden Junction to 75th Street Alternatives A & B 

WA3 Signalization – Ogden Junction to CP 518 Alternatives C & D 

WA5 Corwith Tower Upgrade Alternatives A & B 

WA7 Brighton Park Connection Alternatives A & B 

*Projects P2, P3, EW2 and GS19 are linked for the purposes of environmental review under the 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project. 

**Projects B9 and EW1 are linked for the purposes of environmental review. 
For the CREATE program, all program-level NEPA analysis has been completed. The projects listed in 

the table and detailed in this correspondence are at various stages of project-level NEPA analysis, final 

design, and construction. The CREATE partners are investing billions of dollars in critically needed 

improvements to increase the efficiency of the region's passenger and freight rail infrastructure and 

enhance the quality of life for Chicago-area residents. As of March 2012, the CREATE partners have 

invested nearly $1 billion in needed rail and roadway improvements in the Chicago region. The 

CREATE improvements that are completed are showing demonstrated benefits in passenger and freight 

rail efficiency and improved rail operations. The CREATE partners ask that you take the information 

provided into consideration as you assess the Illinois HSR alternatives. 

Sincerely, 

CREATE Partners 

CC: 

Miriam Gutierrez, Division of Public & Intermodal Transportation, IDOT 

CREATE Partners 
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: B8

Project Name: Summit Signalization  

Project Status: Phase III Construction Complete

Project Location:  Along Indiana Harbor Belt railroad near Pielet Drive and West 59th Street to near Archer

Avenue and West 63rd Street in Summit, IL.   

Scope of Work:  Upgrade a 40 year‐old signal system along the Indiana Harbor Belt Corridor from Bedford

Park to Summit, Illinois.    

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): B&OCT (CSX)

Operator(s): Amtrak, CSX, IHB, and Metra  

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives A & B   

CREATE Partner Comments:    The B8 project installed new TCS signaling for the purpose of increasing train

speeds and capacity between CP Argo and CP Canal.  While all the improvements at this location will not be

fully realized until the entire CREATE program is completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this

information and take it into consideration as you review the IL HSR alternatives.   
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: B9/EW1*

Project Name: Argo Connections/Clearing Yard Main Lines

Project Status: Phase I ‐ 30% design and ECAD in progress

Project Location:   Indiana Harbor Belt (IHB) mainline between 62nd Street and 71st Street and Belt Railway

of Chicago (BRC) Clearing Yard from IHB/BRC connection near the intersection of 65th and 76th Avenues to

the intersection of 75th and Hohman Streets in Summit, Bedford Park and Bridgeview, IL.  Chicago Community

Areas: Ashburn, Chicago Lawn, Clearing, and West Lawn.   

Scope of Work:  Project B9 will construct a new double track connection and crossovers between the BRC and

IHB/CSX line.    This project will connect the CREATE Beltway and East‐West Corridors and will upgrade

mainline crossovers.  Additional crossovers will be added to the control point at 71st Street to allow access

into and out of a signal‐controlled siding track.  Project B9 proposes Argo Yard improvements necessary to

create yard capacity lost as a result of installing the new main line crossovers.    Yard work will include

realignment of switching lead tracks, installation of three new yard tracks, and creating new industry lead

track to avoid switching within the control point.  Project EW1 will consider constructing two new 7‐mile main

tracks around the south side of Clearing Yard, in Bedford Park and Chicago from Harlem Avenue to Southwest

Highway. The project will install crossovers and turnouts at the CP West Subdivision and CP East End.  This

project will provide three new control points that include the installation of a series of crossovers.   Project

EW1 includes yard improvements to offset the loss of yard capacity due to the new main lines.  Yard work

includes realignment of switching lead tracks, run‐though tracks, tracks leading to the hump used to classify

cars, and construction of additional departure yard tracks.  All work will be within the existing railroad ROW.  

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s):  B&OCT (CSX), BRC

Operator(s): Amtrak, BRC, BNSF, CN, CP, CSX, IHB, and Metra

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives A &  B  

CREATE Partner Comments:    The B9 project provides for connection to the new East‐West Corridor for

through trains at Clearing Yard (Project EW1), improves the connection to the Beltway Corridor at CP Argo

and adds capacity to the Beltway between Argo and 87th Street.  It also upgrades the connection between

the B&OCT and CN at CP Canal.  This project is nearing the end of preliminary design, is fully funded and we

expect construction to start in late 2012 or early 2013.  This project will result in a significant improvement to

an important and congested freight corridor between the major Class I carriers in Chicago.    While all the

improvements at this location will not be fully realized until the entire CREATE program is completed, the

CREATE partners ask that you review this information and take it into consideration as you review the IL HSR

alternatives.    

*Projects B9 and EW1 are linked for the purposes of environmental review.
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: P1

Project Name: 63rd and State (Englewood) Flyover

Project Status: Phase III – Construction in progress

Project Location: Chicago, from 57th Place to 69th Street along the Metra Rock Island District (near State

Street).  Project is located within the Englewood and Greater Grand Crossing Community Areas.

Scope of Work: This project will build a rail‐rail flyover to carry the north‐south Metra Rock Island line over

the east‐west NS/Amtrak line.    The project will construct bridges that will accommodate 3 tracks to carry

Metra operations over the four tracks of NS and a possible future fifth track for a high speed intercity

passenger rail connection to points east and/or south.

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): Metra and NS

Operator(s): Amtrak, Metra, and NS

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives C & D

CREATE Partner Comments: The P1 project will construct a triple‐tracked bridge to carry Metra operations

over the four tracks of NS, a possible fifth track for a high speed intercity passenger rail connection.    The

purpose of the P1 project is to eliminate significant rail delays between Metra’s Rock Island District and NS

freight, and Amtrak operations at Englewood Interlocking. This location is one of the most congested on the

Amtrak system resulting in significant delays on a regular basis.  In addition, construction of P1 will improve

the flow of NS traffic in this corridor, thus improving movement of NS’s time sensitive traffic to a nearby

intermodal yard.  While all the improvements at this location will not be fully realized until the P1 project is

completed and the entire CREATE program is completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this

information and take it into consideration as you review the IL HSR alternatives.  
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: P2*

Project Name: 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project

Project Status: Phase I – 30% design and EIS in progress

Project Location: City of Chicago; north limit‐‐69th St.; south limit‐‐100th St.; east limit‐‐the Dan Ryan

Expressway (I‐90/94); west limit‐‐Central Park Ave. City of Chicago Community Areas: Auburn Gresham,

Chatham, Englewood and Greater Grand Crossing, Ashburn, Gresham, Chicago Lawn, West Englewood,

Roseland, and Washington Heights.

Scope of Work:   Alternatives are being developed to address conflicts between CSX, BRC, UP, NS and Metra.

The approach will consider reconfiguring the Belt Railway of Chicago (BRC) main tracks between the Dan Ryan

and Belt Junction where four freight railroads conflict with each other and Metra’s South West Service

operations (EW2). The project will consider constructing a second main track for Metra’s South West Service

operations from near Wrightwood Station to Western Avenue (P2). The project will consider reconfiguring

and building a third BRC main track, and constructing a flyover to connect the Metra South West Service to

the Rock Island Line in the vicinity of 74th and Normal and 75th and Parnell (EW2 and P2). This project will

consider constructing a bridge that significantly reduces conflicts between CSX and BRC, Metra and NS (P3).

The project will also consider constructing a road‐rail grade separation of 71st St. and the CSX freight line

(GS19). Associated signals, tracks, crossovers, and bridge work are included in the project.

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): B&OCT (CSX), BRC, City of Chicago, Metra, NS, and UP

Operator(s): Amtrak, BRC, CN, CP, CSX, Metra, NS, and UP

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives C & D

CREATE Partner Comments: The purpose of the P2 project—which is an element of the 75th Street Corridor

Improvement Project—is to reduce congestion and delays between 80th Street and Forest Hill, increase

capacity for Metra, and eliminate rail traffic conflicts between the Metra Southwest service and the B&OCT

(CSX), the NS and the BRC Mainline (Belt Junction), which allows access to LaSalle Street Station instead of

Union Station and frees up capacity for Metra and Amtrak at Union Station.  The P2 project will reconfigure

the BRC Main tracks between 80th Street and Belt Junction, eliminate Belt Junction and construct a flyover to

connect the Metra Southwest service to the Rock Island Line.  The project includes extensive bridge, signal,

and track work.   While all the improvements at this location will not be fully realized until the entire CREATE

program is completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this information and take it into

consideration as you review the IL HSR alternatives.  

*Projects P2, P3, EW2 and GS19 are linked for the purposes of environmental review under the 75th Street Corridor Improvement

Project.
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: P5   

Project Name: Brighton Park Flyover

Project Status: Future Project   

Project Location: On either side of the current Brighton Park rail crossing in Chicago (between the

intersection of Rockwell and 37th Streets and the intersection of Leavitt and 35th Streets).  

Scope of Work: Construct a bridge to carry CN Joliet Subdivision  also referred to as Amtrak Heritage Corridor

(2 tracks) over or under CSX and NS tracks on the CREATE Western Avenue Corridor (five tracks). This project

includes associated signal, track and structural work.     

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s):  B&OCT (CSX), CN, and NS,  

Operator(s): Amtrak, BNSF, CN, CSX, Metra, NS, and UP

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives A & B    

CREATE Partner Comments: The purpose of the P5 project is to reduce congestion and delays by eliminating

passenger and freight train conflicts at Brighton Park.  The concept is to construct a double‐tracked bridge to

carry the CN Joliet Subdivision over or under the Western Avenue Corridor and includes associated bridge,

track and signal work.  The Phase I work on this project has not started.  While all the improvements at this

location will not be fully realized until the P5 project is completed and the entire CREATE program is

completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this information and take it into consideration as you

review the IL HSR alternatives.  
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: P6

Project Name: CP Canal Flyover (IHB/CN Flyover)

Project Status: Phase I – 30% design and EA in progress

Project Location:  Summit, IL; On either side of CP Canal Interlocking (where CN crosses the Indiana Harbor

Belt) between First Avenue on the east and 63rd Street on the west.

Scope of Work:  Construct a double‐tracked bridge to carry two CN main tracks over or under the Indiana

Harbor Belt (two existing tracks and a future track). Includes associated signal work.     

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): B&OCT (CSX), CN

Operator(s): Amtrak, BNSF, CN, CP, CSX, IHB, Metra, NS, and UP

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives A & B    

CREATE Partner Comments: The purpose of the P6 project is to reduce congestion and delays by eliminating

passenger and freight train conflicts at CP Canal.  This is expected to be accomplished by construction of a

double‐tracked bridge to carry CN Joliet Subdivision two main tracks over or under the Beltway Corridor (two

existing tracks and a future track) so that passenger trains operated by Metra and Amtrak on CN’s line, as well

as CN’s freight traffic, can avoid conflicts with the IHB (Beltway Corridor) trains.  This project is currently in

Phase I design and an Environmental Assessment is being developed.    While all the improvement at this

location will not be fully realized until the P6 project is completed and the entire CREATE program is

completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this information and take it into consideration as you

review the IL HSR alternatives.  

    
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: WA2

Project Name: Ogden Junction to 75th Street

Project Status: Phase III – Construction in progress

Project Location: Ogden and Western Ave to 75th Street, west of Damen Avenue in Chicago.    Chicago

Community Areas: Brighton Park, Chicago Lawn, East Garfield Park, Gage Park, Lower West Side, McKinley

Park, New West Side, New City, North Lawndale, South Lawndale, and West Englewood.

Scope of Work:  This project will install a new bi‐directional computerized Traffic Control System (TCS) on a

seven‐mile segment of the CSX rail line along the CREATE Western Avenue Corridor. Approximately 15 hand‐

thrown switches will be upgraded to power switches. At the CSX 59th Street Yard signals and switches will be

upgraded to improve flexibility in mainline operations.  One of the CSX mainlines will be upgraded between

51st Street and 71st Street from the existing 10 mph maximum speed to allow 25 mph operations  

The project will install a new eastward connection to the Belt Railway from a CSX main line.  All of this work

will be within existing railroad right‐of‐way.  Bridges at 35th Street and 36th Street will be reconstructed to

accommodate the proposed increase in speed.  All of this work will be within existing railroad right‐of‐way.

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): B&OCT (CSX)

Operator(s): Amtrak, CSX, and Metra

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives A & B  

CREATE Partner Comments:  The WA2 project is designed to increase train speeds, increase capacity, improve

utilization of trackage and reduce congestion on the Western Avenue Corridor from Ogden Junction south to

75th Street.  The project is currently under construction.  The efficiency of the operation along the Western

Avenue corridor has continued to improve as the various portions of the WA2 project are put in service.  

While all the improvements at this location will not be fully realized until the WA2 project is completed and

the entire CREATE program is completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this information and take

it into consideration as you review the IL HSR alternatives.  
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: WA3

Project Name: Signalization – Ogden Junction to CP 518

Project Status: Phase III – Construction in progress

Project Location: Ogden Junction to a location near intersection of 40th Street and Canal (CP 518).  Chicago

Community Areas:  Armour Square, Bridgeport and McKinley Park.

Scope of Work:  This project will replace/install power operated switches and a Traffic Control System (TCS)

along the Norfolk Southern main tracks.    WA3 will signalize and allow bidirectional movements along the

main tracks through Ashland Avenue Yard from 22nd Street to Control Point 518.  The project adds a passing

track alongside the Ashland Avenue Yard.

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): NS

Operator(s): Amtrak, Metra, and  NS

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives C & D   

CREATE Partner Comments:   The purpose of the WA3 project is to increase train speeds, reduce congestion

and add capacity along the NS (CR&I/CJ) mains between Ogden Junction and CP 518.  The project is currently

under construction.    The efficiency of the operation along the Western Avenue corridor has continued to

improve as the various portions of the WA3 project are put in service.  While all the improvements at this

location will not be fully realized until the WA3 project is completed and the entire CREATE program is

completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this information and take it into consideration as you

review the IL HSR alternatives.
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: WA5

Project Name: Corwith Tower Upgrade

Project Status: Phase III – Construction complete

Project Location: North of BNSF’s Corwith Yard, near 36th Street and South Central Park Avenue.   Chicago

Community Areas:  Brighton Park, North Lawndale, and South Lawndale.  

Scope of Work:  Install new signal system at the west end of BNSF’s Corwith Yard, which included automation

and remote control of Corwith Tower.   Upgrade track and signals and reconfigure the Corwith Interlocking

where the BNSF Chillicothe Subdivision and CN Joliet Subdivision/Metra Heritage Corridor rail lines cross.

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): BNSF and CN

Operator(s): Amtrak, BNSF, CN, CSX, Metra, and NS

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives A & B  

CREATE Partner Comments:    The WA5 project is complete and has improved train operations through the

Corwith Interlocking.  The project included automation of Corwith Tower, upgrade of track and signals and

reconfigure the Corwith Interlocking.   While all the improvements at this location will not be fully realized

until the entire CREATE program is completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this information and

take it into consideration as you review the IL HSR alternatives.  
2012‐08‐20

CREATE Project Number: WA7

Project Name: Brighton Park Connection

Project Status: Phase I – 30% design and ECAD in progress

Project Location: California Avenue and 37th Place to 21st Street and Western Avenue.  Chicago Community

Area: Brighton Park, Douglas Park, South Lawndale, Little Village.  

Scope of Work:  Construct new connection from the CN Joliet Subdivision near California Avenue and Archer

Avenue to the CREATE Western Avenue Corridor.  Also includes construction of and additional track along the

Western Avenue Corridor to the 22nd Street. Interlocking near 21st Street and Western Avenue.  Rehabilitate

multiple bridges over city streets and over the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.   Install crossover switches

between the new track and the CREATE Western Avenue Corridor.    Install Centralized Traffic Control

signalization over the length of the project.

Affected Railroad(s):   

Owner(s): B&OCT (CSX), CN, and NS

Operator(s): BNSF, CN, CSX, and UP

HSR Tier I Draft EIS Comments:  

Build Alternative with Potential Conflict: Alternatives A & B

CFREATE Partner Comments:  The purpose of the W7 project is to connect the Western Avenue corridor with

the CN Joliet Subdivision.  This project is currently going through Phase I design and environmental review

process.  Once constructed, this new connection will greatly reduce train activity on other corridors that must

currently be used to connect the Western Avenue Corridor with the CN Joliet Subdivision.    While all the

improvements with this connection will not be fully realized until the WA7 project is constructed and entire

CREATE program is completed, the CREATE partners ask that you review this information and take it into

consideration as you review the IL HSR alternatives.  
IREs()uRCt:'S, 

Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 

www.dnr.illinois.gov 

August 16, 2012 

Mr. Joseph E. Shacter 

Director, Division of Public and Intermodal 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

!OO West Randolph St. Suite 6-600 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3229 

Dear Mr. Shacter: 

RE: Chicago to St. Louis 

High-Speed Rail 

Tier 1 DE IS 

Pat Quinn, Governor 

Marc Miller, DIrector 

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has reviewed the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) Tier 1 for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail. We offer the 

following comments for your consideration. 

The main thought that should continue to be considered as this project progresses through the 

planning and design phase, is to implement the "avoidance and minimization" concept of 

impacts to natural resources on the landscape. 

In the DEIS, reference is made to the continued coordination with IDNR for studies/surveys to be 

completed concerning prairie remnants, state listed species and wetlands. Results of those 

surveys will be made available for review and comment as the project progresses during the Tier 

2 phase. 

Currently, coordination efforts are ongoing for the Eryngium stem borer (state listed insect) that 

is present within the proposed improvements along the UPRR tracks, between Dwight and 

Pontiac Illinois. Application for an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) has been submitted and is 

being processed at this time. 

In keeping with the resource policies established by the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources, the Interagency Wetland Policy Act allows a three year time period for wetland 

impact determinations and wetland compensation plans to be implemented before having to be 

re-evaluated. This same three year time period applies to the reviews for compliance with the 

state Endangered Species Protection Act and resource studies relative to the project. 

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources has no further comments and looks forward to the 

continued coordination efforts as the project progresses. 

Illinois Dept. of Transportation 

DIVISion of Public and 

Intermodal Transportation 
, ' . 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 217-785-4862 

Sincerely, 

Steve Hamer 

Impact Assessment Section 

Division of Ecosystems and Environment 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

One Natural Resources Way 

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271 

Page 2, High Speed Rail Tier 1 

Cc: Bob Szafoni/ORC-IDNR Springfield; Mark Phipps/NHB-ORC Region 4; Dan Kirk/NHB 

District-l0-0RC; Kris /Kris Lah/USFWS Barrington; Norm West!USEPA Chicago; Kathy 

Chernich/USACOE Chicago 
AUG 15 1011 

Mr. James W. Moll, P.E., S.E. 

Vice President 

Hanson Professional Services, Inc. 

1525 S. Sixth Street 

Springfield, Il 62703 

Dear Mr. Moll, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economic Development Administration 

CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE 

111 N. CANAL ST., SUITE 8SS 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-7208 

Thank you for your letter July 3, 2012 requesting Economic Development Administration (EDA) 

comments with regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Chicago, Illinois to 

st. louis, Missouri High*Speed Rail Corridor Program. EDA's mission is to generate jobs, help retain 

existing jobs and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas. This is 

accomplished through grant programs that are available to rural and urban areas experiencing high 

unemployment, low income or other severe economic distress. 

At this point, EDA does not have any concerns or issues that need to be addressed regarding the DEIS for 

the high-speed ra il service from Chicago to St. louis. If you have any other concerns or questions, you 

may contact Robin D. Bush, Coordinator, Environmental & Strategic Analysis at 312*353·8143 ext. 146. 

EDA encourages investments that will significantly benefit areas experiencing or threatened with 

substantial economic distress and has the potential to increase high wage jobs and private sector 

investment. We appreciate your recognition of EDA and its programs. 

Sincerely" _ - --, 

~-AA- J- eannette P. Tamayo, 

Regional Director